Have you ever flown into the Denver Airport? Did you know that it is one gigantic penis? According to this false prophet the Denver Airport is filled with all kinds of phallic symbols.
This guy has been promoted in various COG groups over the years. If you thought Armstrongite false prophets were crazy, this guy puts them all to shame.
This kind of stupidity reminds me of the fool that claimed the Ambassador Auditorium pillars were giant penises. I remember GTA standing on the stage making fun of the guy. GTA said anyone that thought that kinds of silliness would also get turned on by piano legs.
It has always amazed at how focused Armstrongism has been on sex over the decades.
35 comments:
The roof of the Denver airport clearly is a collection of giant BREASTS, not penises. Let's get it right, fellows and girls.
Glenn Parker
Who is this guy? I watched the video where he explains IF YOU USE CONDOMS YOU WILL NOT BE RAPTURED! What a nutter.
I live in Denver, and the Denver airport looks like a giant white tent! How in the world can somebody see a breast or penis in that? Another great question regarding Armstrongism - why are they so obsessed with phallic symbols?
So. let me get this straight. The penis is evil and is a sign of satan? A penguin is a phallic symbol? Everything that is not roughly spherical or cubic, is more or less phallic? Look closely, this guy has FIVE phallic symbols. ON EACH HAND!! His whole body is one big phallic symbol! Last, but certainly not least, I am convinced that he actually HAS a REAL phallus, that it is reported he takes with him everywhere he goes! Therefore, he is an evil satanist.
Me thinks he protests too much. Way too much. Time to come out of the closet?
At first I thought this guy had to be a spoof. "Revelation Unraveled?" Third Eagle of the Apocalypse? What a nut job.
BTW, I am the Twelfth and Final Birdman of the Intermediate Tribulation, as prophesied in the lost book of Jasher. Just sayin'.
WARNING- There are many COG feast sites that are in the Florida...
PENIS-ULA
Stay away from these polluted and unclean feast sites.
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY
I bet this guy sees giant genital symbols everywhere. He should be afraid to go to Petra with all those caves. You know what caves symbolize, don't you? It seems that all airports are obsessed with genital symbols of one kind or another---the tall towers, the long tunnel-like entrances to the plane, etc. I suggest he stop traveling and live in a cav--; oh I forgot. Caves symbolize female genitalia. Poor guy! As if life doesn't pose enough problems for us semi-normal people. It must be terrible to go around seeing giant genitalia everywhere you look.
Let's just say it plain, simple and honest; Meredith has a dirty, filthy mind. So, naturally, he thinks everybody else has a dirty, filthy mind too.
But, he's not gay...he may be an unhappy homosexual but he's definitely not "gay".
I thought he would complain about MASONIC or ILLUMINATI symbolism and stuff like that. But, no!
It's penises everywhere! What a dirty old fart.
another seekeroftruth
Not Breasts? Just Google images of the roof of the Denver airport.
Glenn Parker
anything longer than its wide scares these guys.
Dirty filthy mind? That's what you get when you suppress and there is no outlet for release. These phallic-obsessed people have sex in their minds all the time and every where they go because they are simply sex starved.
Anonymous said...
These phallic-obsessed people have sex in their minds all the time and every where they go because they are simply sex starved.
MY COMMENT: Who isn't? :-)
Glen Parker wrote: "Not Breasts? Just Google images of the roof of the Denver airport."
OK, I'll admit the view of the airport I described above is from the ground level! But I checked an aerial perspective on Google maps, and, alright, maybe if one has a really good imagination the multiple tent peaks can possibly be interpreted in a different way! Similar to the horny French-Canadians on an expedition who first saw the mountain peaks in Wyoming and called them "The Grand Tetons" - grand teton being the French term for "large tit."
And Anonymous 3:07, I wouldn't necessarily call it a "dirty filthy mind" - but rather a god-haunted RELIGIOUS mind. Much like uneducated Catholics tend to see images of Jesus and the Virgin Mary in tortillas or pieces of toast, fundamentalists are prone to imagine other patterns which they consider evil, like the devil or the male member. This is easily explained by means of the pattern recognition system of the human brain gone wild with deeply-ingrained religious ideology adding a rather hefty assist! (See Dr. Michael Shermer's book THE BELIEVING BRAIN, which details such a phenomenon superbly.) Even though in the fundamentalist belief system "God created them male and female" and all was said to be "very good," the reality is that much of fundamentalism is rooted in anti-sex puritanical Protestantism.
But even though we can laugh at this idiot fundamentalist, his "thinking" illustrates in principle the exact same kind of reasoning and pseudo-scholarship that arrives at concepts such as British-Israelism. For example: Isaac's sons = sacs sons = Saxon's! Or: the Union Jack = Jacob! I mean this is just the kind of uninformed reasoning HWA used to arrive at many of the tenets that composed "God's Truth." And that's exactly why it has not stood up very well at all when rigorously analyzed by real scholars.
Same thing with this god-addled joker who claims that certain areas of the Denver airport were intentionally designed by devil-inspired architects and civil engineers. This is ALL just a standard example of common religious reasoning in action. And then they wonder why their ideology is such a laughing stock to the rest of us! But there you have it.
I can just imagine a pilot announcing, "Ladies and gentlemen, please fasten your seat belts and chastity belts because we are about to land on a giant penis."
Christianity has quite a history of nutter preachers with 'strangely telling' views on sex.
Click here to see TV's Christian freakazoid "Doctor Creflo Dollar" espouse some of his craziness!
OMG!
I just saw the darling of Trinity Broadcasting Network and Daystar Network, MIKE MURDOCK, who is awesomely spirit-filled, and preaching like never before...
Click here to hear it!!!
Precious Holy Spirit...THANK YOU JESUS!
(And thanks for letting me know I can't buy a good couch for only $1,000.00, Mike Murdock!)
Anonymous 8:27, anthropologists have pointed out the documented fact that tells us the most sexually-repressed cultures, both modern and ancient, have the highest rate of sexual crimes such as rape and child-molestation. Interpret that as you will, but that's a fact.
most religions are obsessed with sex. Some don't even hide it. There is some kind of celebration in Turkey where monks walk down the street holding huge penises (there is no mistake). Then there are fertility rights. I suppose it was more important when there weren't many people on earth, and the ones here were dying in childhood of disease.
Then we come to Christianity which gained some ideas about how evil sex was from the garden of Eden experience. Of course men have always been insecure because they don't really know if a child is actually theirs. Relax fellows now we have DNA testing so if you really are nervous you can get a test.
My own theory is that the sex drive somehow shares the same area of the brain as the religious drive (the god spot), because it seems that religious people are more obsessed with sex that any other group. As for the Armstrongs they were born that way no doubt, they almost can't help it.
"GTA said anyone that thought that kinds of silliness would also get turned on by piano legs."
How would GTA know? GTA was never turned on by anything because he was never off.
And by the way, the two young Chechen/Russian guys now the prime suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing case seem to be religiously motivated - at least previous comments from the older brother killed in the gunfight earlier today would seem to suggest this.
This stuff would all be in the non-issue category in a grace-based setting. It's like "we know idols are nothing" (St. Paul).
Now, if the setting were different, like, if an ACOG member walked into a club where there were electric vibrating dildos on the walls and furniture, what Christian WOULDN'T get the hell out of there and never come back?
As for Meredith and those using him as the model of Christian living, I'd say someone just took the equivalent of a Rohrshack test and it proved they're preoccupied with sex!
BB
BB
Byker Bob, are you actually implying that sex is a "non-issue" in a "grace-based setting?" Surely you're not being serious, are you? Have you ever heard of Jimmy Swaggert? Or Ted Haggard? Or Jim Bakker? Or how about the fact that in the grace-based baptist Bible-belt adultery and divorce is more common among Evangelical Christians than it is among unbelieving atheists?
Perhaps I misunderstood your rather unclear comment. Would you be willing to clarify it just a bit more?
Leonardo,
RCM, HWA, and GTA are/were sexually repressed sufferers of little-dick syndrome. Furthermore, the three of them knew nothing about grace.
I'm not sure how much Swaggert, Haggard, and Bakker know about grace. However, because of grace, all of their many, public, and laughable sins were forgiven.
My wife and I are big on grace. She is an accomplished artist who prefers to paint nudes. I used to be her favorite model but, perhaps I have to hit the gym a bit more often now.
My father-in-law is also an artist who painted huge portraits of his naked wife. Both of them are saved-by-grace Christians.
My kids never cared to ask why Grandmama is showing her grand tetons in a two-story painting in one of their homes. However, I'm traumatized by another portrait of my mother-in-law that hangs in another house we thankfully rarely visit. In that painting she is fully dressed - as Our Lady of Sorrows, Patroness of Granada - but, it hangs on the wall behind our bed. That is both evil and anti-sexy!
Earlier, you wrote, "anthropologists have pointed out the documented fact that tells us the most sexually-repressed cultures, both modern and ancient, have the highest rate of sexual crimes such as rape and child-molestation. Interpret that as you will, but that's a fact."
That's an intriguing claim of fact; what source would you use to support those statements?
When I did a stint of wondering if I was an atheist, I concluded that sex is way to good to have evolved sans design.
Now, I know God invented sex for our enjoyment, blessed it, and commanded we do it - often!
UT wrote: "Earlier, you wrote, "anthropologists have pointed out the documented fact that tells us the most sexually-repressed cultures, both modern and ancient, have the highest rate of sexual crimes such as rape and child-molestation. Interpret that as you will, but that's a fact." That's an intriguing claim of fact; what source would you use to support those statements?"
Wow, I'm glad we aren't neighbors, UT! But to answer your question, in modern times it's supported by relative crime statistical comparisons between obviously sexually repressed countries (such as India or China, for example) as compared to more liberal countries in regards to sex, such as Sweden or Denmark. In ancient cultures the link isn't as easy to demonstrate, as it's more of a general historical observation simply because hard statistics obviously weren't available from such societies.
Now, UT, I have a question for you. You dogmatically asserted above that "RCM, HWA, and GTA are/were sexually repressed sufferers of little-dick syndrome."
What would be your proof for such a statement? Personal experience? Or did you at one time perhaps share the same locker room with them all?
I've seriously answered your question, now please seriously answer mine.
after about a minute I could not help but crack up, seriously, a swastika and a phallus, what is wrong with this guy??
Hey Leonardo,
Thanks for answering my question. I guess I mistakenly thought you were correlating Christianity with sexual repression and the resulting spike in sexual crimes.
Sure, some Christians erroneously preach and enforce unhealthy views on sexuality. However, Christians, or religions in general, do not hold a monopoly on screwy sexuality views and sex perps among their numbers.
I do believe that there is a tendency of sexual repression to often have religious origins and that the lack of healthy sexual outlets gives rise to deviancy and crime.
However, I believe God's design of sexuality is based on safe and abundant sexual expression, even though humanity tends to fuck up everything - in the wrong way.
I thought it's fascinating you cited India and China as sexually repressive societies. Since they are such huge nations, they are not easily defined by terms that can accurately depict the entirety of their populations. There are millions of people in both India and China that are free from any religious taboos that would be commonly viewed as sexually repressive yet, in their cultures, sexual crimes are well documented.
When I read your earlier post, I instantaneously though of Islamic cultures - those that are extremely sexually repressive and yet have very low rates of sexual crimes.
Certainly, sex crimes are most likely to be vastly unreported in these countries yet, most would agree that in reality, the rate of sex crimes is truly low. I'm not defending the sexually repressive aspects, nor the criminal justice practices, of these nations - just pointing out what I see as an anomaly to your assertion.
I noted that although you answered my question, no sources beyond your views were cited directly.
You also mentioned, "Wow, I'm glad we aren't neighbors, UT!" I wondered if that may perhaps be a glimpse into your own possible sexual repression.
I think we're safe neighbors. Currently, there are no nudes hanging about our house - I think that's because my wife sold them all.
We don't walk around the house naked either. Although, I used to spend most of my time in only a swimsuit or just undies. However, I stopped doing that because we frequently have a house full of neighbor kids - and I had often not known they were in the house until I startled a group of young girls on my way to the kitchen - or other similar chance encounters.
My wife recently painted her take on a classic scene in which five females are enjoying a frolic in the nude. I teased her about how lesbo the painting looked. She had it on an easel near the door to a patio for several months. During that time several Christians of all ages passed it - most commented positively about the painting, some said nothing, none said they were offended.
Anyway, my too-long-winded point is that a good portion of Christianity views the human body as the art of God and have no problem with artists or airport architects depicting human anatomy in all its glory.
However Leonardo, I must warn you that my wife has sold her nudes widely across North America. One of her paintings could very well be hanging in your very neighborhood. Let's pray one is not next door to you, especially not one for which I was the model.
Leonardo,
You seemed eager, maybe desperate, for me to elaborate on my comment about RCM, HWA, and GTA suffering from little-dick syndrome.
Alas, my comment is not based on first-hand observation.
No, my non-dogmatic opinion is based on their attitudes and my likely to be flawed memory of their respective wives.
I'd have no problem with them being preoccupied with sex in their preaching and writing. Unfortunately, their preoccupation with sex was always demonstrably unhealthy.
Being so uptight about everything, especially sexuality, makes one think sex was not working out well for them personally - could be they did not have much to work with emotionally or physically.
GTA never stopped trying to find satisfaction but, there is evidence to suggest that he had to keep looking in all the wrong places because it didn't come easy to him from a regular and healthy source. I recall reading somewhere, perhaps in an excerpt from In Bed With Garner Ted, that he underwhelmed the teller of the tale. His former masseuse was definitely not impressed either.
The trio's pervasive tyrannical rule over everything is indicative of little-dick syndrome - aka Napoleon Complex. If they had something better to do with their energy - such as sex - they wouldn't have wasted so much of their resources on inhibiting others.
From what I recall of their wives, they always had a sour look on their faces. They did not seemed to be women who were well loved. It is doubtful that each of their husbands were able to hit the spot.
So Leonardo, unfortunately, I have no inside scoop to reveal - only assumptions.
However, I think it's a bit tantalizing that the secrets of RCM, HWA, and GTA are so easily laid plain with a little touch of pop psychology.
Truly, they are each the star of their own version of The Emperor's New Clothes - NAKED for all who have eyes to see.
Leo, the confusion is only in your own mind. Giving you the benefit of a doubt, and assuming you are not just mocking things you really know in your heart, the best thing we Christians here could possibly do for you is to pray that God grants you discernment.
I look forward to having beer and nachos with you and some of our other friends in the Kingdom.
BB
UT, the government in China is a very repressive system, and it does reach into sexual morays. Sexual repression does not necessarily have to be religious in nature, though it often is. I visited China once for a martial arts-related trip, and I can tell you that most Chinese see Americans as being very sexually loose people, a perception that other cultures have as well.
Islamic nations having low rates of sex crimes? Not really. For instance, many Arab men, well, let’s just say they have a penchant for little boys, and it's an accepted part of the culture, though not publicly discussed. Read THE ARAB MIND by Raphael Patai. The fact that sex crimes often are denied or go unreported because of the shame involved (and remember that Islam is an extremely shame-based religion), doesn't mean they have low rates of sexually-related crimes.
You wrote: "You also mentioned, "Wow, I'm glad we aren't neighbors, UT!" I wondered if that may perhaps be a glimpse into your own possible sexual repression."
No, I don't think so, but I'll admit I don't generally talk about sex openly to many people. What's the point? I was always kind of private on that subject. Not ashamed of it, but just never one to go on and on about it in the company of others. Actually, my observation has been that the more folks prattle on about sex, the more troubles and issues they tend to have with respect to it. That's just a personal observation. I knew a deacon once in the old WCG who would openly refer to himself as the "deacon of sex" - which frankly, I found kind of creepy.
You wrote: “…a good portion of Christianity views the human body as the art of God and have no problem with artists or airport architects depicting human anatomy in all its glory.”
That’s true. A good illustration of that is the many fine paintings of the Middle Ages, unashamedly depicting human nudes with genitals in all their glory, and most of these paintings had religious themes to them!
So you mentioned that you used to walk around your house in the buff. Reminds of the joke about the midget who got kicked out of the nudist camp – it seemed he couldn’t keep his nose out of other people’s business!
You wrote: “You seemed eager, maybe desperate, for me to elaborate on my comment about RCM, HWA, and GTA suffering from little-dick syndrome.”
Not really, just kind of curious as to how you knew this with such certainty!
You wrote: “Being so uptight about everything, especially sexuality, makes one think sex was not working out well for them [HWA and GTA] personally - could be they did not have much to work with emotionally or physically.”
That’s no doubt true about HWA and Loma. He openly talked about it after Loma’s death in 1967. It frustrated him greatly. He used to get in his car and just drive around the streets of Pasadena, Loma’s frigidity would so grate on him. GTA? – I don’t know, he just seemed to have an inordinate need for constant admiration, which he tried in crazy ways to achieve with other women. Never seemed to work for him, though. He was kind of the JFK of the WCG! But it’s not mine to judge in a condemning way. We all have our particular weaknesses.
Byker Bob wrote: "Leo, the confusion is only in your own mind. Giving you the benefit of a doubt, and assuming you are not just mocking things you really know in your heart, the best thing we Christians here could possibly do for you is to pray that God grants you discernment."
Ah, some good old-time Christian condescension, as always! Interesting how it's ALWAYS the unbeliever who is wrong and confused, never you. As far as discernment goes, I think even you would have to admit that most Christians who blog here are profoundly lacking in it, Bob. I mean they almost NEVER are able to answer with any degree of articulateness even the most simple questions and inquiries put to them, which I personally ask 9 times out of 10 to get further clarification out of their frequently unclear statements and assertions.
For instance, I just sincerely asked you to clarify a previous comment you made about grace or whatever - “This stuff would all be in the non-issue category in a grace-based setting.” That was honestly my motive. And how did you respond? Did you simply explain in a little more detail what you meant? No. You condescended by commenting on my "mocking" and my “confusion.” Why does almost every conversation with a believer have to turn into an occasion for them to verbally fire off a cutting, condemnatory mini-sermon when just a simple explanation would suffice?
Hey Leonardo,
I don't get what may be going on between you and someone else but, I guess you had an unanswered question about grace - at some point. Well, it just so happens that grace is more of a favorite topic of mine than even sex is.
I get what you were saying about some in WCG who were very creepy with their sex talk. Even though I enjoy the topic of sex, I've always thought that it was unthinkable to discuss personal details of what's between me and my wife - even though my wife comes from a culture in which all is an open book.
However, you can't shut me up about grace! That may be the reason why some seem to want to ban me from speaking, or typing, my mind.
I think I've angered some by stating that grace will save you even if you presently don't think you want to be saved - or don't believe a saving higher power exists.
I recall you mentioned the high adultery and divorce rate among Baptists. I did a five year stint as a visitor in a Baptist church. My conclusion was that all of those who I knew personally, including the pastor, did not fully understand biblical grace.
As egregious as the grace-less Rainmain Meredith and Herbutt were in this life - sexual sins and all - if at any point in their life they trusted in Jesus as their Savior, they will then be saved for eternity - despite their flagrant and public sexual deviancy.
Perhaps one or both of them trusted in Jesus as a child or at some point in their chaotic journey through their perverted religion - if so, they were bought at a high price.
That high purchase price is GRACE - with a no return policy.
Salvation is all a God thing - not a work of humans. Saving grace cannot be undone by humans either.
We all do all kinds of stupid and evil stuff, sexual and otherwise - but, grace saves us because of what Jesus did.
COGs don't get the biblical concepts of grace and justification
Christians are saved by grace and justified by the righteousness of Jesus.
Therefore, Christians are acutely aware of how despicable we truly are but, God only sees the the righteousness of Jesus covering us and thereby we end up being 100 percent righteous - only because of the righteousness of Jesus.
So, you may call yourself an atheist at this point in your journey but, whether you want it or not - if at any point in your life you acknowledged Jesus as Savior - you've been saved for eternity.
You may be pleasantly private about sex but, perhaps you're more comfortable discussing sex than grace. Even thought it's easy just to dismiss grace in conversation - it remains eternally sticky to you.
Although I love to talk grace, I don't feel it's my job to convince you that God and grace exist - and that sex is proof of the existence of both.
You are entitled to your opinion - even though you may no longer be entitled to the choice of your eternal destiny.
I'd be willing to bet money, or nude paintings, that your personal fate has already been sealed in Jesus - and we'll all be toasting over beers in the kingdom over my win, BB's win, your win, and the ultimate win of Jesus!
Now, if you read this far, don't you wish I just rambled on only about sex?
UT: Nothing can piss off a diehard Armstrongite espousing the law faster than the word "grace" can. You can criticize HWA all you want and they just yawn, but say the word grace and the shit hits the fan. Just look at Malm for a case in point.
UT wrote: "I did a five year stint as a visitor in a Baptist church. My conclusion was that all of those who I knew personally, including the pastor, did not fully understand biblical grace."
Well, that's part of the problem, UT - Christians can't ever seem agree with each on what "grace" is, or whose definition to accept. Then all the slinging of labels such as "He's not a true Christian" or "That Baptist minister doesn't REALLY understand grace." It is really possible that YOU - of all those Baptists and their pastor - were the ONLY one in that congregation to really understand the subject? New Testament scholar Dr. Bert Erhman is right, there is no such thing as Christianity, but multiple Christianities, plural. You can't seem to agree on even the most basic teachings of your religion because you all have differing and often conflicting interpretations of it.
And besides, it's really not much of topic that interests me anymore. Why? Because it's only relevant if you buy into the underlying assumptions via faith, such that we need grace from an offended invisible god, etc. These are the things that I was willing to confront. 99% of those who've left the WCG/COG world haven't had the guts to do this. They're smart enough to realize that this might possibly open up a Pandora's Box of further questions, and then their beloved ideology might come crashing to the ground. Faith is extremely tissue thin. And folks know it. That's why that "true Christian" guy who always posts as Anonymous and who claims to be a scientist gets so offended when I broach anti-Christian subjects. If he was a real scientist he would have this approach because everything is subject to rigorous examination.
I don't call myself an atheist at all. In my view it's as an extreme and unjustified position as being a supernaturalist fundamentalist believer. Personally, I have a theory: that ALL of us are closet agnostics, simply because we don't truly KNOW the answers to life's biggest questions. Many believe they know, but they don't, that's why faith is required. They don't KNOW, they BELIEVE. A very subtle yet vital distinction that few make. Believing something with all your heart and soul doesn't necessarily make it true in objective reality.
I am very comfortable discussing any of these kinds of religious topics, because I was an ardent Christian for 38 years. But over time and experience, though much reading and reflection, I've come to see how empty the claims all are.
But, unlike ardent atheists, I'm still open to any kind of intervention of a supposed god or Being or whatever might lay behind the cosmos. It's just that I see that's it's likely not Yahweh, the tribal god of the OT, and by extension of Christianity.
Actually, I very much appreciate your comments above. It's nice to be able to have serious discussion on such subjects, because the vast majority of Christian believers who blog here can't defend their views very well at all. So they just throw one ad hominem argument after another at me in order to evade the task. So your thoughtful words and comments are appreciated.
I seek an accurate understanding of the ultimate truths of the cosmos. But so few seem willing to walk on this path. Why? Because they already believe they have all the answers "in Jesus." But their inability to explain their views articulately and without resort to insults or circular reasoning gets so predictable after awhile.
So I must tell you I look forward to future, civil and mutually beneficial exchanges with you, UT. I truly do. Especially since you seem willing and able to express your views in more than just a two or three sentence "tweet." I must say this is so incredibly refreshing!
Leonardo,
Me civil? I'm not sure I can handle a compliment. I prefer to slug away at people. When I do, I hope they know that I'd only bother with them because I believe they're tuff enough to take and return a punch.
You wrote, "ALL of us are closet agnostics, simply because we don't truly KNOW the answers to life's biggest questions. Many believe they know, but they don't, that's why faith is required. They don't KNOW, they BELIEVE."
I agree - with each word!
I have a completely psycho story to tell about an early visit to that Baptist Church I referenced. I was very angry about having to be there and as loud music music was playing I was thinking, "This stuff is crazy! I don't belong here! I've got to get to get out now!"
Now the psycho part: I couldn't take the angst any longer and was turning to leave. Then I heard the words "You are mine!"
They were not audible words - with a voice - they shocked me throughout my body and then left me with an overwhelming peaceful kind of joy.
If anyone told me of that kind of experience during or post WCG days, I'd say they were definitely crazy. As good as I felt afterward, I tried to deny it happened and also wondered if I'd lost my mind or if there was mass hypnosis going on.
I told one person about it and he said it was the "voice" of God. Whatever. But, I suddenly could tolerate church, felt some degree of faith in the existence of God, and started getting something out of reading the Bible.
So, what else could I do but follow that belief that started in me? I didn't know what that "voice" was about and I didn't know much about anything but, to my shock, and sometimes horror and embarrassment I was left with BELIEF.
Furthermore, I'm out of the closet too - that is, the agnostic closet you mentioned. I'm open about the fact I often have bouts of disbelief - Christianity really is all too crazy! However, through all the doubts, I still have a an underpinning of FAITH that I can't shake no matter how hard I inwardly spar with anti-Christian viewpoints and my own twisted ugliness.
Later, I learned about the pursuing nature of grace.
Leonardo,
You mentioned the concept of true Christians and competing opinions on grace.
The Baptists I mingled among were true Christians - and - they knew a lot, and taught me a lot about grace. One vital element of grace they taught me was that you cannot lose salvation - it is a free gift and God does not accept returns, nor does He yank it back because we're bad.
However, the natural human default, even for Christians is denying grace or trying to add something to grace. HWA did both. And, so it is with all of us - from time to time.
However, unlike HWA, most Christians are so moved by grace, they eventually fall back in line with it.
Some believers in grace have not been, or won't allow themselves to be challenged to see how some of their beliefs limit grace. I thought that was the case with the Baptist buddies I was talking about.
As for "true Christians" - most evangelicals I'm aware of agree that true Christians and the true Church spans denominations. The true are those who accept Jesus as Savior.
That has nothing to do with denominations and the myriad of differing beliefs. Also, most agree that some members of their own denomination are not true Christians - some just play church.
On one Christian blog I was applauded for my addition to a conversation on grace. Then I mentioned the "perusing nature" of grace and they all turned on me. Whatever. Christians all have to experience grace as it comes.
I'm okay with the fact that we all don't agree on the subject of grace. I think that speaks to the vastness of God and His Word - we all get a bit of a different angle, and that bit we do get can be freshly different everyday.
I guess, talking about grace with open and willing people who reject the concept of grace makes grace move a bit farther out my agnostic closet door.
I'm intrigued that most of your friends are Christians. I deeply admire many Christians but, I don't think I can really count one as a close friend. I do have a few true friends who call themselves agnostics and atheists - and some let me spout off about grace.
Grace is what makes Christianity different form every other religion in the world. Armstrongism and all the others are about what man must do to get to heaven the next level, or perfection. True Christianity is all about what God did to get man there.
I guess you've never encountered the pursuing nature of grace.
NO2HWA,
You're right. Grace is the one word that unravels all doctrines of Armstrongism, and stops the flow of fear and tithes. It must be fought against with all their might.
Post a Comment