Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!
With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable.
Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders
There is one positive legacy of Herbert Armstrong that I feel compelled to point out. There are many human beings who wouldn't exist if it weren't for their parents meeting and marrying in the Worldwide Church of God. I have a branch of my family who otherwise would not exist but for the WCG - all of whom have left Armstrongism in the 1990s when little Joey Tkach changed the doctrines, shrunk the church and stole the church assets that were paid for by the tithes, offerings, special offerings, building fund and holy day offerings of the dumb tithe sheep slaves.
Now that I think about it as I sip on my morning cup of coffee, there is a second thing which Armstrongism has contributed to the world - it made an otherwise mediocre individual who had no special talents or ability into a multi multi millionaire simply by inheriting the church assets paid by the adherents of Herbert Armstrong's fear religion.
Oh, and a third thing Armstrongism has contributed to society - it proved Christ's own words when he said, "Many shall come in my name and shall deceive many".
One of those legacy's is the "Church of God a Worldwide Association Inc." I sat in total dis-belief while reading their "fundamental beliefs" page. Never got past that one. Still in shock. cogwa.org/about/fundamental-beliefs/ Everyone of their posted beliefs is a warped misrepresentation of scripture, yet, to my amazement, they have followers. I suppose it comes down to man creating a god he is willing to worship. It is easily proven in scripture that Mr. Armstrong was indeed the "Son of Perdition" spoken of in 2Thes. 2:3 and by that we know, those who carry on his legacy will suffer the same fate. itstimecog@hotmail.com
on September 14, 2015 at 9:30 PM Anonymous said... "If so, then the Pharisees were substantially right all along."
and I ask, "In what sense?" apart from having omitted the weightier matters of the law. "Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."
also "Of course, we might as well be discussing whether or not the land of Oz is lawless society."
Like the 'good old USA', the land of Oz (the LAN down under) does have laws and statutes set in place. That is not to say everyone obeys them and in extreme cases lawbreakers can be taken out of that society. However I would still maintain that the Kingdom of God is NOT a lawless society and those that will not obey its laws will not be found in it.
Question to its time - I just read the fundamental beliefs statement you referenced in your post. What is wrong wit it? If you state something like that, you need to back your statement up.
"'If so, then the Pharisees were substantially right all along.' and I ask, 'In what sense?' apart from having omitted the weightier matters of the law."
There were different schools within the Pharisaic movement, most notably, the House of Hillel, the more liberal school, and the House of Shammai, the more conservative and strict school. The House of Shammai and the Sadducees both collapsed after the destruction of the Temple, so Rabbinic Judaism follows Hillel. So the descendants of Hillel Judaism were the ones who eventually would write down the Talmud and canonize the Tanakh. And yet, in modern times we have the Chasidim, or ultra-orthdox Jews who seem to be in every way the modern embodiment of the House of Shammai. The legalistic tendency, the feeling that the rote following of law is the only logical way to proceed, that it is the only way to maintain integrity, is a tendency which will always be with us. Unfortunately, this legalism collapses into a chaotic free-for-all of feuding, intolerant, judgy assho1es who each have their own priorities and pet doctrines. The more extreme you get (and there's no limit to how extreme you can get) the more you fall down the rabbit hole into this insanity. This path has produced no end of atrocities down through history.
Of course, on the other end of the spectrum, you have the liberalizing tendency. This crowd cherry-picks which divine commands they want to follow, disregarding any that seem too disruptive, inconvenient, extreme, impractical, incoherent, or contradictory. Although this is admirable in human terms, in terms of divine command theory, this is almost totally unjustifiable. They may follow these "weightier matters" and try to do their best to love their fellow man, but they do it at the expense of whimsically abrogating large tracts of supposedly "god-breathed" law.
There's no justifiable, sensible, rational, or unassailable resting position to be found at either end of the spectrum. Moreover, neither the legalistic nor the liberalizing tendencies can be reconciled with each other as legalism will always be at odds with tolerance and love. But seeking a more balanced position in the middle of the road doesn't make any greater sense. In fact, every individual, at every specific point across the entire spectrum winds up convincing himself he's in the "right" place, as everyone who is more liberal is impure and unrighteous, while everyone who is more strict is self-righteous. But this can't be right either. The entire enterprise called "belief" is fatally flawed.
You appear to be claiming the legalisic tendency, even if it leads to bad places in practice, is the path to the eventual payoff. Lord, save me from your kingdom of incoherent legality and eternal douchebaggery.
"'Of course, we might as well be discussing whether or not the land of Oz is lawless society." Like the 'good old USA', the land of Oz (the LAN down under) does have laws and statutes set in place."
No, not Australia. The land of Oz as in the fantasy region containing four lands, of the Munchkins, Winkies, Gillikins, and Quadlings, under the rule of Princess Ozma. Thankfully I do not need to be saved from the equally fantastical kingdom of incoherent legality and eternal douchebaggery, since neither kingdom will ever exist anywhere except in people's fertile imaginations.
on September 15, 2015 at 2:58 PM Anonymous said..MUCH but I'll concentrate on two elements viz: 1. "No, not Australia. The land of Oz.........." and I realize my mistake, I should have used American spelling and written "Like the 'good old USA',the land of Aus. (the LAN down under) does have laws and statutes set in place.
2."Thankfully I do not need to be saved from the equally fantastical kingdom of incoherent legality and eternal douchebaggery, since neither kingdom will ever exist anywhere except in people's fertile imaginations."
Long ago I came to the conclusion that WE ALL BELIEVE WHAT WE WANT TO BELIEVE be it true or false. You believe that "neither kingdom will ever exist" because that's what you want to believe.I believe differently, because I want to.
Well, Ralph, I'm getting into this discussion a little late, but I would paraphrase your statement on belief. I think belief goes beyond simple want. It has to do with natural propensities and comfort level. We tend to believe those things which are in keeping with our natural propensities. And of course, the knowledge of this generalization is what usually opens the discussion to objectivism, and objectivist thinking.
People cite the incredible number and precision of laws and regulations in Germany during the third Reich. That would certainly represent one set of proclivities. A free-form artist, or old cleaned up biker might be more favorably inclined to nearly no "mala prohiba" laws or regulations. Much depends on what someone would do with proclivities and conditions, and how one would conduct one's life. Love is described as being the basic law behind "the law", and can be demonstrated under various conditions.
"Long ago I came to the conclusion that WE ALL BELIEVE WHAT WE WANT TO BELIEVE be it true or false. You believe that 'neither kingdom will ever exist' because that's what you want to believe. I believe differently, because I want to."
You're just shifting the burden of proof.
Sure, whatever, in the same way that you "believe" there's no Santa because that's "what you want to believe, be it true or false." Imagine how I would sound if I said I believed in Santa "because I want to." After all, you can't prove there's no Santa, FTW! Sure, whatever. We both know Santa and the Land of Oz are both nonsense.
"It is easily proven in scripture that Mr. Armstrong was indeed the "Son of Perdition" spoken of in 2Thes. 2:3"
Holy Discerning Spirits, Batman! It's always entertaining to hear how Herbie is spoken of in the Bible...(And the icing on the cake is this one saying, "It is easily proven in scripture".)
Yesterday I wanted to believe the fish would bite, so I did. I went fishing. No fish bit. I still yearned to believe, but was forced to concede that the fish actually were not biting in spite of my earnest desire. Thus belief can get debunked, after which the only rational thing to do is abandon it. Something similar has happened to many ideas I hoped were true, including just about all of those propounded by Armstrongism.
On the other hand, I have to admit it sometimes happens the way Ralph claims. I myself backslid in my skeptical principles for the reason he mentions. People in the Ozarks, where I grew up, told a lot of ghost stories. I lived on the Missouri side of the state line long enough to adopt the "Show Me State" attitude: "If you want me to believe in ghosts, you gotta show me one."
As a teenager I often went hunting after dark with my .22 rifle, a flashlight, and my little dog Corky. On windy nights the tree branches would rattle against each other, and trees that leaned against each other would creak and groan. A kid that makes a practice of going out in that environment cannot afford to leave open the possibility of a ghost. So I adopted dogmatically the unprovable idea that ghosts are impossible. That irrational belief has served me well for going on sixty years now.
on September 16, 2015 at 11:45 AM Retired Prof said... "Yesterday I wanted to believe the fish would bite, so I did. I went fishing. No fish bit. I still yearned to believe, but was forced to concede that the fish actually were not biting in spite of my earnest desire. Thus belief can get debunked, after which the only rational thing to do is abandon it."
Yes, beliefs can get debunked ie. proven false, and we no longer want to believe in them because of that. However, although many ideas propounded by Armstrongism were proven to be false I would hesitate to say "just about all of them".
20 comments:
I think this meme was supposed to have read, "The Legacy of Armstrong."
And not only has it not added anything, it has done its small part to subtract from the advancement and wellbeing of humanity in general.
There is one positive legacy of Herbert Armstrong that I feel compelled to point out. There are many human beings who wouldn't exist if it weren't for their parents meeting and marrying in the Worldwide Church of God. I have a branch of my family who otherwise would not exist but for the WCG - all of whom have left Armstrongism in the 1990s when little Joey Tkach changed the doctrines, shrunk the church and stole the church assets that were paid for by the tithes, offerings, special offerings, building fund and holy day offerings of the dumb tithe sheep slaves.
Now that I think about it as I sip on my morning cup of coffee, there is a second thing which Armstrongism has contributed to the world - it made an otherwise mediocre individual who had no special talents or ability into a multi multi millionaire simply by inheriting the church assets paid by the adherents of Herbert Armstrong's fear religion.
Oh, and a third thing Armstrongism has contributed to society - it proved Christ's own words when he said, "Many shall come in my name and shall deceive many".
Richard
He also showed to many, or should that be some?, that the Kingdom of God is not a lawless society.
cheers
rajph.f
One of those legacy's is the "Church of God a Worldwide Association Inc."
I sat in total dis-belief while reading their "fundamental beliefs" page. Never got past that one. Still in shock.
cogwa.org/about/fundamental-beliefs/
Everyone of their posted beliefs is a warped misrepresentation of scripture, yet, to my amazement, they have followers.
I suppose it comes down to man creating a god he is willing to worship.
It is easily proven in scripture that Mr. Armstrong was indeed the "Son of Perdition" spoken of in 2Thes. 2:3 and by that we know, those who carry on his legacy will suffer the same fate. itstimecog@hotmail.com
The. Most. Vacuous. Article. Ever.
"He also showed to many, or should that be some?, that the Kingdom of God is not a lawless society."
If so, then the Pharisees were substantially right all along.
Of course, we might as well be discussing whether or not the land of Oz is lawless society.
It has exposed a great volume of information about cults: That is what it has contributed.
This is a very rich resource for those who want to know what cults are and understand them -- as a cautionary tale of religion gone bad.
on September 14, 2015 at 9:30 PM
Anonymous said...
"If so, then the Pharisees were substantially right all along."
and I ask, "In what sense?" apart from having omitted the weightier matters of the law.
"Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."
also
"Of course, we might as well be discussing whether or not the land of Oz is lawless society."
Like the 'good old USA', the land of Oz (the LAN down under) does have laws and statutes set in place. That is not to say everyone obeys them and in extreme cases lawbreakers can be taken out of that society. However I would still maintain that the Kingdom of God is NOT a lawless society and those that will not obey its laws will not be found in it.
cheers
ralph.f
Question to its time - I just read the fundamental beliefs statement you referenced in your post. What is wrong wit it? If you state something like that, you need to back your statement up.
"'If so, then the Pharisees were substantially right all along.' and I ask, 'In what sense?' apart from having omitted the weightier matters of the law."
There were different schools within the Pharisaic movement, most notably, the House of Hillel, the more liberal school, and the House of Shammai, the more conservative and strict school. The House of Shammai and the Sadducees both collapsed after the destruction of the Temple, so Rabbinic Judaism follows Hillel. So the descendants of Hillel Judaism were the ones who eventually would write down the Talmud and canonize the Tanakh. And yet, in modern times we have the Chasidim, or ultra-orthdox Jews who seem to be in every way the modern embodiment of the House of Shammai. The legalistic tendency, the feeling that the rote following of law is the only logical way to proceed, that it is the only way to maintain integrity, is a tendency which will always be with us. Unfortunately, this legalism collapses into a chaotic free-for-all of feuding, intolerant, judgy assho1es who each have their own priorities and pet doctrines. The more extreme you get (and there's no limit to how extreme you can get) the more you fall down the rabbit hole into this insanity. This path has produced no end of atrocities down through history.
Of course, on the other end of the spectrum, you have the liberalizing tendency. This crowd cherry-picks which divine commands they want to follow, disregarding any that seem too disruptive, inconvenient, extreme, impractical, incoherent, or contradictory. Although this is admirable in human terms, in terms of divine command theory, this is almost totally unjustifiable. They may follow these "weightier matters" and try to do their best to love their fellow man, but they do it at the expense of whimsically abrogating large tracts of supposedly "god-breathed" law.
There's no justifiable, sensible, rational, or unassailable resting position to be found at either end of the spectrum. Moreover, neither the legalistic nor the liberalizing tendencies can be reconciled with each other as legalism will always be at odds with tolerance and love. But seeking a more balanced position in the middle of the road doesn't make any greater sense. In fact, every individual, at every specific point across the entire spectrum winds up convincing himself he's in the "right" place, as everyone who is more liberal is impure and unrighteous, while everyone who is more strict is self-righteous. But this can't be right either. The entire enterprise called "belief" is fatally flawed.
You appear to be claiming the legalisic tendency, even if it leads to bad places in practice, is the path to the eventual payoff. Lord, save me from your kingdom of incoherent legality and eternal douchebaggery.
"'Of course, we might as well be discussing whether or not the land of Oz is lawless society." Like the 'good old USA', the land of Oz (the LAN down under) does have laws and statutes set in place."
No, not Australia. The land of Oz as in the fantasy region containing four lands, of the Munchkins, Winkies, Gillikins, and Quadlings, under the rule of Princess Ozma. Thankfully I do not need to be saved from the equally fantastical kingdom of incoherent legality and eternal douchebaggery, since neither kingdom will ever exist anywhere except in people's fertile imaginations.
on September 15, 2015 at 2:58 PM
Anonymous said..MUCH
but I'll concentrate on two elements viz:
1. "No, not Australia. The land of Oz.........."
and I realize my mistake, I should have used American spelling and written "Like the 'good old USA',the land of Aus. (the LAN down under) does have laws and statutes set in place.
2."Thankfully I do not need to be saved from the equally fantastical kingdom of incoherent legality and eternal douchebaggery, since neither kingdom will ever exist anywhere except in people's fertile imaginations."
Long ago I came to the conclusion that WE ALL BELIEVE WHAT WE WANT TO BELIEVE be it true or false. You believe that "neither kingdom will ever exist"
because that's what you want to believe.I believe differently, because I want to.
cheers
ralph.f
Well, Ralph, I'm getting into this discussion a little late, but I would paraphrase your statement on belief. I think belief goes beyond simple want. It has to do with natural propensities and comfort level. We tend to believe those things which are in keeping with our natural propensities. And of course, the knowledge of this generalization is what usually opens the discussion to objectivism, and objectivist thinking.
People cite the incredible number and precision of laws and regulations in Germany during the third Reich. That would certainly represent one set of proclivities. A free-form artist, or old cleaned up biker might be more favorably inclined to nearly no "mala prohiba" laws or regulations. Much depends on what someone would do with proclivities and conditions, and how one would conduct one's life. Love is described as being the basic law behind "the law", and can be demonstrated under various conditions.
BB
"Long ago I came to the conclusion that WE ALL BELIEVE WHAT WE WANT TO BELIEVE be it true or false. You believe that 'neither kingdom will ever exist' because that's what you want to believe. I believe differently, because I want to."
You're just shifting the burden of proof.
Sure, whatever, in the same way that you "believe" there's no Santa because that's "what you want to believe, be it true or false." Imagine how I would sound if I said I believed in Santa "because I want to." After all, you can't prove there's no Santa, FTW! Sure, whatever. We both know Santa and the Land of Oz are both nonsense.
"It is easily proven in scripture that Mr. Armstrong was indeed the "Son of Perdition" spoken of in 2Thes. 2:3"
Holy Discerning Spirits, Batman!
It's always entertaining to hear how Herbie is spoken of in the Bible...(And the icing on the cake is this one saying, "It is easily proven in scripture".)
Bwahahaha!!!!
Yesterday I wanted to believe the fish would bite, so I did. I went fishing. No fish bit. I still yearned to believe, but was forced to concede that the fish actually were not biting in spite of my earnest desire. Thus belief can get debunked, after which the only rational thing to do is abandon it. Something similar has happened to many ideas I hoped were true, including just about all of those propounded by Armstrongism.
On the other hand, I have to admit it sometimes happens the way Ralph claims. I myself backslid in my skeptical principles for the reason he mentions. People in the Ozarks, where I grew up, told a lot of ghost stories. I lived on the Missouri side of the state line long enough to adopt the "Show Me State" attitude: "If you want me to believe in ghosts, you gotta show me one."
As a teenager I often went hunting after dark with my .22 rifle, a flashlight, and my little dog Corky. On windy nights the tree branches would rattle against each other, and trees that leaned against each other would creak and groan. A kid that makes a practice of going out in that environment cannot afford to leave open the possibility of a ghost. So I adopted dogmatically the unprovable idea that ghosts are impossible. That irrational belief has served me well for going on sixty years now.
on September 16, 2015 at 2:12 AM
Anonymous said...
"You're just shifting the burden of proof."
and I ask, what burden of proof and from where to where?
also
"Imagine how I would sound if I said I believed in Santa "because I want to."
I guess you would sound quite normal to someone with the same belief.
on September 16, 2015 at 11:45 AM
Retired Prof said...
"Yesterday I wanted to believe the fish would bite, so I did. I went fishing. No fish bit. I still yearned to believe, but was forced to concede that the fish actually were not biting in spite of my earnest desire. Thus belief can get debunked, after which the only rational thing to do is abandon it."
Yes, beliefs can get debunked ie. proven false, and we no longer want to believe in them because of that.
However, although many ideas propounded by Armstrongism were proven to be false I would hesitate to say "just about all of them".
cheers
ralph.f
on September 16, 2015 at 11:45
Retired Prof said...
"Yesterday I wanted to believe the fish would bite, so I did. I went fishing."
and I ask:
Was there any evidence to support your belief, or was it simply hope as compared to belief?
cheers
ralph.f
:-)
I believe my fish finder constantly lies to me
Post a Comment