This is what it's like listening to Herbert Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, Mark Armstrong, Gerald Waterhouse, Tim Kitchen, Sam Kitchen, Rod Meredith, Gerald Flurry, Wade Cox, Steve Gilbreath, Dave Pack, Herman Hoeh, and all the other Church of God false prophets. Not one single thing any of them predicted has come to pass.
48 comments:
I'm more concerned with what has happened to our oceans than I am about how world and domestic conditions continue to violate the precepts of Armstrongism.
People wonder why dissidents continue to hang around and post. It's because "Maybe if it never happens, they'll go away" hasn't worked.
BB
i beg to differ on that: i believe that back in the 50's or 60's armstrong correctly predicted the decline of the british empire...
i beg to differ on that point: i do believe that in the late 50's he predicted correctly the decline of the british empire...
The picture says it all. Sadly so many people in or out of the COG's waste their lives waiting for something that will never happen. So sad!
On October 8, 2015 David C. Pack's splinter group called the Restored Church of God posted its latest annual video called Behind the Work 2015--“A Glimpse of the Millennium” at its website.
The video showed someone by the name of Michael Gammel who was called the Farm Manager.
Dale Schurter was not mentioned anywhere in the video. What happened to him, and where is his skeleton buried?
DooDahDee. At the tone the time will be: A quarter 'til Armageddon, exactly. BEEP!
DooDahDee. At the tone the time will be: A quarter 'til Armageddon, exactly. BEEP!
DooDahDee. At the tone the time will be: A quarter 'til Armageddon, exactly. BEEP!
DooDahDee. At the tone the time will be: A quarter 'til Armageddon, exactly. BEEP!
DooDahDee. At the tone the time will be: A quarter 'til Armageddon, exactly. BEEP!
DooDahDee. At the tone the time will be: A quarter 'til Armageddon, exactly. BEEP!
DooDahDee. At the tone the time will be: A quarter 'til Armageddon, exactly. BEEP!
...
4:21/-4:25, it is an established fact that World War II caused the decline if the British Empire. They never recovered, never were the same thereafter. Because this was becoming evident live and in living color during the late 40s and early 1950s, there was no forecast or prediction about it; merely the observation of fact, the reading of newspapers. France also had had colonies, and went through a similar decline following WW-II. We inherited the Viet Nam mess from them, as the cut loose of what had previously been called French Indo-China.
BB
NEWS FLASH--
Dale Schurter, who has been listed as a Senior Editor at Dave Pack's "Real Truth" Magazine, is no longer listed in the magazine credits in the latest issue. What has become of Dale??... and as mentioned above was not seen in the Restored Church of Gods festival video and was replaced by a different person as "farm manager" with nary a mention of Schurter.
Anonymous October 12 5:36 PM said:-
"Dale Schurter was not mentioned anywhere in the video. What happened to him, and where is his skeleton buried?"
Somewhere near the pole barn, probably!
A little bit of research on their site gets a rough date. He was shown as both a Senior Editor, and a Contributing Writer on the 'Real Truth' until the June/July edition, then he disappeared from the August edition onwards.
Also noticed two other names that have disappeared in the last year - Senior Editor Gabriel N Lischak, and Contributing Writer James F Turck.
Have all three left the Packman ship?
The psychology of the situation in the splinter groups today is truly amazing, fascinating, and frightening.
If David Pack had started out at the very beginning of his RCG by saying that he was “restoring” the “common” idea that everything that everyone has belongs to him and must be sent in to RCG HQ, “or no salvation if you don't,” and that therefore he, and not HWA, must be the Elijah, he probably would have been quickly rejected as just another greedy kook by most of the very same people who are now trapped in his RCG.
Now that RCG members have spent so many years listening to David Pack, reading his writings, and financially supporting him, they seem to feel compelled by his shouting to go desperately “all in” and go along with whatever outrageous doctrinal changes he makes, and hope against all reason that it somehow doesn't end in the complete disaster that it looks like it will.
Psychopaths can be extremely deceitful, tricky, and destructive--especially the Satan-sent, Satan-directed ones on the COG scene today.
It will very hard for RCG members to hold on to any true beliefs after what David Pack has done to them in the name of God.
GTA was entertaining more often than not and for all kinds of reasons ;)
but my all-time fav would be Ronald L. Dart. I'm glad he is still around because i still ocassionally listen to him, even though I am now agnostic.
on October 13, 2015 at 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...
"....even though I am now agnostic."
from 'Merriam-Webster:- "Main Entry:1ag£nos£tic
Pronunciation:ag-*n*s-tik, *g-
Function:noun
Etymology:Greek agn*stos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gn*stos known, from gign*skein to know— more at KNOW
Date:1869
:a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
I am not agnostic and know it's none of my business but would you care to tell why you are?
cheers
ralph.f
When I was a new member of the WCG back in the early 80's I remember HWA saying that it was very likely that Jesus would return by the end of the decade of the 80's . That was over 30 years ago. The question is will Jesus ever return? Did Jesus ever walk this earth at all? Is the Jesus story just a myth? Can the Jesus story written almost 2 thousand years ago be even proven to be true? If not I am sorry to say that waiting for the return of Jesus is pointless.
Regarding the poor slob above who pathetically put forth, regarding HWA, "He was right about one thing . . ."
Even if true (it isn't), does that count for anything against all the things he was wrong about. All the bad things Headquarters people said were sure to happen. More, all the GOOD things my local pastors, and fellow members, told me would happen for me now that I was part of the group God loved best of all.
Those deceived souls over there, still enslaved by Armstrong's Compendium of Biblical Nonsense (and the vast addenda of all the Little Herberts) still say to themselves, "They'll see. They'll see we were right after all." 30 years on from the Great False Prophet's death, what could be left for them to end up "right" about?
ralph.f asked: "I am not agnostic and know it's none of my business but would you care to tell why you are?"
Primarily to avoid needless religious debate.
My beliefs are always changing because there is always new information coming into my awareness. So, my beliefs will occasionally shift from a typical agnostic viewpoint towards something like "philosophical theism".
Martin Gardner explains :"I am a philosophical theist. I believe in a personal god, and I believe in an afterlife, and I believe in prayer, but I don’t believe in any established religion. This is called philosophical theism.... Philosophical theism is entirely emotional. As Kant said, he destroyed pure reason to make room for faith."
Did you know that it is possible to be spiritual without religion?
"from Merriam-Webster:a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable;"
I agree with that definition but i would like to add to it.
Atheists vs. Theists(occultists)
Isn't it remarkable that two contradictory propositions can both be known? In fact, how can either of these two propositions be known? If there really is a God, could that fact be not merely believed but actually known? Perhaps it could be, by some mystical insight. On the other hand, if there isn't a God, could that fact be known? Certainly not by any scientific means! Could it then be known by some mystical means? If so, it would be a rather fascinating type of mysticism that could perceive the nonexistence rather than the existence of something!
another seekeroftruth
Speaking of Ronald L. Dart, some dude put hundreds of his sermons, with summaries, up at cogsermons.org.
Comment was made that: "...This is what it's like listening to Herbert Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, Mark Armstrong, Gerald Waterhouse, Tim Kitchen, Sam Kitchen, Rod Meredith, Gerald Flurry, Wade Cox, Steve Gilbreath, Dave Pack, Herman Hoeh, and all the other Church of God false prophets. Not one single thing any of them predicted has come to pass..."
A thought came to mind regarding one individual not listed above: Joseph W. Tkach Senior. Joe, although he never to my knowledge professed to be some prophet, told us that he was unable to walk in Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong's (HWA) shoes, but would walk in his footsteps, which became stationary at his death. The footsteps only went "backwards" towards Protestantism.
Although it is no big deal, I think Joe spoke some truth there and mouthed an interesting prophecy about himself...and he, and Joey Jr., may not ever have even realized how accurate he was in saying that prophecy before he, like HWA, took a "dirt-nap."
John
Ralph, I went through the agnostic phase about twenty years ago. Some become atheists overnight, but I didn't as I had to slowly evolve into it. It took a long time of reprogramming, study and careful analysis to see that there was no god and never had been a god.
i am sure there were scoffers about the Isaiah 11 prophecy on israel returning to the levant, they have returned; how ephraim would stop vexing them, and indeed britain did stop oppressing the jews; how jordan would be subjegated by the judah, and jordan was defeated by the jews; how judah would oppress the inhabitants of palestine...
and denying that there is a God is like denying that you have parents; our parents had nothing to do with their own conception, nor did their ancestors, nor can any of us prevent our inevitable deaths; we cannot read minds, nor do we know all the secrets of the universe, yet despite our obvious limitations we proclaim that there is no God despite the fact that there is so much evidence of things happening that we have no say so in...
"I am not agnostic and know it's none of my business but would you care to tell why you are?"
I became an apostate when I realized Herbert Armstrong was wrong.
I became an agnostic when I realized Herbert Armstrong wasn't very original.
I became an atheist when I realized Christianity wasn't very original.
as long as our belly is full, as long as there is no worry of predators, as long as the whole of society is not in a state of perpetual violence, mayhem, lawlessness, as long as we are not reminded of our natural vulnerable state, then there is not God...
let the reverse of the afore mentioned happen, and let man either seek out God, or blaspheme Him, but we will acknowledge Him...
I realized Herbert Armstrong was very wrong when he said Christ was NOT raised in the body he died in. This is the spirit of Antichrist. He said the body disappeared from the tomb.
So here he has Jesus lying to Thomas. He told Thomas he was flesh and bone. Mr. Armstrong would make Jesus misrepresenting himself to Thomas.
Only satan misrepresents himself in the bible.
They tried to get around the definition of a deceiver and an antichrist by saying Jesus IS coming in YOUR flesh daily. That is not what it says.
He came in the flesh, he lived in flesh, died in the flesh and was raised flesh and bone with life inherent in him now. He will come again in the flesh.
Knowing HWA was not right on a host of things does not put me off my belief in God.
Knowing fake prophets abound in the world, I will wait and be patient. God knows what he is doing. Of that I am sure, even if the men who claim to represent him have no clue.
"yet despite our obvious limitations we proclaim that there is no God despite the fact that there is so much evidence of things happening that we have no say so in..."
Ummm...sure...makes perfect sense
as long as our belly is full, as long as there is no worry of predators, as long as the whole of society is not in a state of perpetual violence, mayhem, lawlessness, as long as we are not reminded of our natural vulnerable state, then there is not God...
let the reverse of the afore mentioned happen, and let man either seek out God, or blaspheme Him, but we will acknowledge Him...
why are you afraid to post that comment , diehl? regardless, you will most certainly either seek God or you will curse Him, but you will understand that man will certainly not be able to deny him...
I am not the one Ralph was asking about agnosticism, but I'll chime in anyway.
When my son heard me say I am an agnostic, he said, "Dad, there are two kinds of agnostics: those who don't know but act as if there is a god, and those who don't know but act as if there isn't. You're the second kind, so that makes you a practical atheist."
He's right. I can't say for sure there is no god, but the chances look so slim that I've simply decided it's safe, in making my day-to-day choices, to discount the possibility.
If I'm wrong, you can watch me dive into the lake of fire. Hold my beer and watch. Not a belly-flop. Not a swan dive. I'm going for a cannonball!
As John says, time will tell.
"i am sure there were scoffers about the Isaiah 11 prophecy on israel returning to the levant, they have returned; how ephraim would stop vexing them, and indeed britain did stop oppressing the jews; how jordan would be subjegated by the judah, and jordan was defeated by the jews; how judah would oppress the inhabitants of palestine..."
Let's just hypothetically propose that almost everything you've said here is, well, at least in general terms, correct. The fly that rests in the ointment is that neither the Celtic nor Germanic branches of the human family share a common patriarch with the Jews. So, if we hypothetically proposed that "Ephraim" existed as an identifiable "nation," Britain cannot, I repeat, cannot be this "nation"! Britain has been ruled out as being a candidate for a modern day "lost tribe of Israel." This simple, unambiguous fact that has now been unequivocally established. And that fact being secure, this entire theory about how to interpret Isaiah 11 collapses without recourse.
"and denying that there is a God is like denying that you have parents; our parents had nothing to do with their own conception, nor did their ancestors, nor can any of us prevent our inevitable deaths; we cannot read minds, nor do we know all the secrets of the universe, yet despite our obvious limitations we proclaim that there is no God despite the fact that there is so much evidence of things happening that we have no say so in."
I have parents. I can identify my ancestors. There are over 100 intermediary hominid species leading back to the ancestor whose chromosomes 12 & 13 fused to form my chromosome 2 between 5.6 and 6.4 million years ago. These are 2 additional simple, unambiguous facts. Otherwise, an argument from human limitation and your private incredulity is a non-starter. Just because humans are neither omniscient or omnipotent does not mean anyone is "keeping secrets" or "pulling strings."
First, grapple with the facts, then come back and float a new theory. Until your theories can be updated to acknowledge all the currently established facts, all you're doing is establishing that you're still living in the 19th century. It's time to get on board the train to the 21st century now. It's not too late. There's a new train leaving every day. We're waiting for you there, eagerly anticipating your arrival.
Oct 14, 3:43 AM Ed said...If certain things like, is the story about Jesus 2,000 years ago even true, if not then waiting for him is pointless. Well Ed, for me I will patiently wait and don't in any way see it as pointless. I have proven to myself it is true what the bible teaches, including the story of Jesus, I believe it totally and have no doubt whatsoever. Will it happen in my lifetime or when others predict it, who knows, probably not because there still are a few things that must happen first and are as yet not happening. Those like Armstrong and others used saying things like he will probably return in 5, 10, or 15 years to keep the money rolling in.
If we watch close enough we will know how close or how far away his coming really is, we don't need others trying to tell us, the bible makes it plain. It may be 10 years from now or 50 years from now, we will know as the time gets closer and not before, meanwhile, I'm simply going to patiently wait, and if not in my lifetime, he will be here when I awake. I see nothing pointless here Ed.
Anonymous 4:18..Someone said something they thought was true and because you didn't agree with it you call him a poor slob, what's that all about, sure says a lot about you.
Allen Dexter at 9:59 AM..Like you Allen, when HWA died and things changed like they did and doubt started to creep in, I too had to do a lot of study and careful analysis to come to the conclusion unlike yours. I see and am 100% convinced that God is and always has been.
the fact is that God did exactly as He said He would in Isaiah 11...just because you dont accept it as fact does not mean it did not happen:
He said He would bring them back to the levant and that happened during and after ww2; He said judah would no longer vex ephraim and that is exactly what happened: jewish terrorism against the british in palestine did ultimately cease;
He said that the children of ammon would obey judah, and indeed after several defeats in wars against the jews, jordan, whose capital is amman, capitulated under less than desirable terms...
just because you proclaim these things as non facts does not make them non facts, and there are millions of people who both believe and disbelieve Isaiah 11 who also believe in God;
and the fact is their behavior in near future will fulfill more prophecy, not the least of which that we in this nation will be starving and subject to predators of various kinds, both animal and human; lets see if having a "superior mind" will keep us alive, well fed and safe...
In my mind this discussion is one reason why Armstrongism is so destructive: the ACOG ministers constantly deride the Catholics and other Protestant groups, focusing on the negatives,doctrinal inconsistencies and hypocrisy (or supposed hypocrisy),of the members of these groups without focusing on any of the positives (Catholic hospitals, Charity, tradition, family etc.). ACOG's use a scorched earth approach to gaining new members and when someone leaves Armstrongism, they are left with not only bitter taste in their mouth for ACOG culture but for all forms of Christianity.
Questeruk said...
“Also noticed two other names that have disappeared in the last year - Senior Editor Gabriel N Lischak, and Contributing Writer James F Turck.”
David Pack has been trying recently to get people to go along with his sudden and truly monstrous doctrinal changes by claiming that there are all sorts of miracles happening to all sorts of people all over in the RCG.
It looks like the higher-ups in the RCG who know what is going on do not believe the miracle stories.
Senior citizen 1:57 PM said: "...I realized Herbert Armstrong was very wrong when he said Christ was NOT raised in the body he died in. This is the spirit of Antichrist. He said the body disappeared from the tomb..."
Senior citizen, your definition of the spirit of Antichrist is not correct, but Herbert Armstrong (HWA) did preach the spirit of antichrist. Why? HWA said that Jesus Christ was more than 100% human, 100% man, flesh, blood and bone! HWA made Jesus Christ to be something other than a human being, something other than a man. He added something else to Jesus Christ and therefore taught the spirit of antichrist. What did HWA add? Something that virtually all of the xcogs add to one degree or another...sometimes they say 50%, some say 100% What was added to Jesus Christ, a man?
In his book, Mystery of the Ages," HWA wrote this:
"...It is vital that we understand, at this point, that Jesus, during his
human life, was both God and man..."
"God and man" is more than just a man, like us. It is kind of like some sort of a "freak," for lack of another word to use...making Jesus Christ other than some brother to us. How can we, man and woman, become like that false Jesus, another Jesus, who was more than man: God and man?
Jesus Christ was a human being just like us: the same as us with a natural body.
Hebrews 2:14 says: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;..."
When Jesus Christ was born flesh, of flesh, there was no God added to Him. He also did not take on any of the following nature: spirit!
:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
Jesus Christ was flesh...just like you, us...and Abraham and his seed: composed of a natural body.
And how was Jesus Christ resurrected? Flesh: a natural body, or as a spiritual body?
1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
In Mystery of the Ages, HWA wrote:
"...Then, from Romans 8, if we have and are led by the Holy Spirit of God,
we shall be raised to Spirit composition and immortality in the God
family even as Christ was in A.D. 31 upon his resurrection..."
It was actually 30 AD, but that is another story.
Jesus Christ was able to manifest Himself as flesh and bone, pass through barriers like walls, etc., if/when He wanted to.
FWIIW, Jesus Christ was part of the First Resurrection. When the Bride, composed of Firstfruits (Rev 14:4) sealed by God, is completed and is made alive via a resurrection that will complete the First Resurrection.
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." Revelation 20:5
Was/is Jesus Christ blessed?
Was/is Jesus Christ holy?
The First resurrection has a beginning and an end determined by God the Father.
Oh, and Jesus Christ did not inherently have eternal life in Himself. The Word didn't have it either. It was given to Jesus Christ:
"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" John 5:26
Jesus Christ had a beginning: God the Father has no beginning and no end...
John
on October 15, 2015 at 2:08 AM
Chuckles said...
"Allen Dexter at 9:59 AM..Like you Allen, when HWA died and things changed like they did and doubt started to creep in, I too had to do a lot of study and careful analysis to come to the conclusion unlike yours. I see and am 100% convinced that God is and always has been."
It seems that there are at least two of us that have followed the same, or a similar, road.
cheers
ralph.f
Anonymous Retired Prof said...
"I am not the one Ralph was asking about agnosticism, but I'll chime in anyway."
I believe that was me.
Retired Prof, I liked your son's attempt to narrow down the field but I know for a fact that that would lead to more misunderstanding. I'll admit though, that I might come across as someone experiencing the "God of the gaps" syndrome. In fact, there could be some truth to that. But how would athiests respond to Einstein?
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity." Albert Einstein
There was a funny video on TEDtalks of Neil deGrass Tyson explaining his definition of agnosticism and the silly wikpedia editing war over his wikpedia page. He would say that he was agnostic but other editors kept changing it to atheist. This happened several times before he decided to just give it up. I think I understand how he felt. Ever since I stated that I was agnostic, I've been called an athiest or a satanist by members of my family. There was this one incident that can show how stupid labels can be. My sister became frustrated by attacking my beliefs and stated that I was an atheist AND a satanist! I told her that was the stupidest thingn I have ever heard her say. She responds "Well you'll be the one burning in hell for all eternity!"(she was in the Fundy Baptist camp in my crazy family)
Hey Ralph, if you seen and read my answer and reasons why I'm agnostic, please respond because I am curious. I thought I made it clear but I'll try again.
you posted from a dictionary:":a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
"I am not agnostic and know it's none of my business but would you care to tell why you are?"
cheers ralph.f
my reply: Atheists vs. Theists
Isn't it remarkable that two contradictory propositions can both be known? If we are God's creation why would He allow contradictions. The same can be said for Evolution. In fact, how can either of these two propositions be ACTUALLY known? If there really is a God, could that BELIEF be not merely believed but ACTUALLY known by real proof or evidence? At least a logical Theist would admit to the concept of 'blind faith' and leave it at that. But if there isn't a God, how could that fact be ACTUALLY known? Certainly not by any scientific means! Or maybe that is bcause we are still so technologicaly-challenged. We couldn't even put a man on the moon by the end of this year if we had to. So, would an Atheist ever admit to using 'blind faith' as proof?It is ideas like these as to why i choose to stay on the fence ofagnosticism. I don't care which side wins. Well, ...wait. That's not true.
Eternal life, godlike powers, who doesn't want to be a superhero?
another seekeroftruth
at October 14, 2015 at 7:41 PM
Retired Prof said...
"He's right. I can't say for sure there is no god, but the chances look so slim that I've simply decided it's safe, in making my day-to-day choices, to discount the possibility.
If I'm wrong, you can watch me dive into the lake of fire. Hold my beer and watch. Not a belly-flop. Not a swan dive. I'm going for a cannonball!"
Such a dreadful ending!!!
I'm reminded of this quote:-
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is."
Albert Camus
found "HERE"
October 15, 2015 at 3:51 PM
you wont be going to the lake of fire for not believing in God, or for any blasphemy against the Person of God; there is nothing we who are flesh and blood can do against Him that is of any significance...
but if you blaspheme against the Power it takes for Him to Forgive, what hope have ye?
Ralph quoted:"I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is."
Why wait?
I'm curious, did you use the same strategy in choosing your religion? Armstrongism vs. Mainstream Christianity, Islam, Heaven's Gate,...........
from
maybe I am waisting my time
"...but if you blaspheme against the Power it takes for Him to Forgive, what hope have ye?"
How would that be possible? Would you elaborate on that statement?
"'I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is.'
Albert Camus"
Right. Now, so many Gods to choose from...
How can I decide which Gods to live my life as though they exist?
Different Gods want you to live your life in different ways that are mutually incompatible...
How can I decide how my life should be lived so as to maximize my chances of hitting the Jackpot after I die, yaknow, just in case there are Jackpots to be hit?
the Power to Forgive is what allows God to overlook all of our sins, and that Power is His Holy Spirit; hence if we blaspheme the Power of Forgiveness we condemn ourselves...
on October 16, 2015 at 2:24 AM
Anonymous said...
"How can I decide which Gods to live my life as though they exist?"
Perhaps we could be more definitive by changing one word of the quote, viz.
""I would rather live my life as if there is a 'Jehovah' and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is."
then add:
"Eph_6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
cheers
ralph.f
October 16, 2015 at 12:23 AM
Anonymous said...
"Why wait?"
Wait for what?
and
"I'm curious, did you use the same strategy in choosing your religion? Armstrongism vs. Mainstream Christianity, Islam, Heaven's Gate,..........."
From my memory,such as it is, I think I was impressed at a young age by protestant evangelists. I did nothing about "religion" until one day, in my early twenties, I heard HWA's voice on a local radio station and followed through from there.
and
"maybe I am waisting my time"
why do you say that?
cheers
ralph.f
we were born knowing absolutely nothing, we cannot read the minds of any living thing, we don't know comprehensively how the universe works, we cannot even see in the dark, we can neither predict when we will die, nor do we have anything to do with our conception, yet we proclaim with all knowing arrogance and certainty that we know there is no God???
Thanks for responding and sharing. Freedom is a wonderful AND dangerous thing or idea but it is required if we are to learn anything worthwhile. So, as long as my choices don't interfere with your choices and vice versa we could be able to agree to disagree.
I was raised a conservative Baptist with private schooling and all that. I switched over to Armstrongism when I was young because I thought it was a 'superiour' Christianity, lol. Well, I learned the hard way. If you find yourself bored or curious, see if you can find some common ground in this article. There is no need to debate or report back on it because it is only some ideas from a man.
http://tetrahedral.blogspot.com/2011/12/carl-sagans-new-way-to-think-about.html
cheers
a seekeroftruth
People used to associate the term "atheist" with the USSR. I remember once, when my journey took me through a period of atheism, a time of purification from all the Armstrong heresies, false prophecies, and horrible concept of God. I had responded to a question at a social gathering with the answer that I was an atheist. People appeared to be badly shocked. An older gentleman whom I respected greatly admonished me to use the term "agnostic". It sounds less harsh, and lets people know that, logically, you allow for the possibility of the existence of God. People, therefore interpret it as being a less angry term. There may be very small shades of difference between the two terms, but agnostic is taken as somewhat less offensive, unless you are talking with a fundamentalist, all of whom consider agnostics to be de facto atheists.
BB
"we were born knowing absolutely nothing, we cannot read the minds of any living thing, we don't know comprehensively how the universe works, we cannot even see in the dark, we can neither predict when we will die, nor do we have anything to do with our conception, yet we proclaim with all knowing arrogance and certainty that we know there is no God???"
Nope. Nice straw man, though.
Given what we do know however, such as:
a) the way that out of all the gods people have imagined to exist, not ONE has ever spoken for himself, but always seem to require a human being to speak "on their behalf." (Why such unanimity? Why such conformity among the gods? It's because they all have one thing in common...),
b) the way that gods ask us to take leave of our senses by accepting wild, outlandish, and extraordinary claims without any evidence, and even make it virtuous to do so (Since an omnipotent god is better positioned to provide indisputable evidence for his many qualities, not to mention his very existence, why is it soooo important that he refuse to provide it, and demand we forego it? Convenient...),
c) from biology, from archaeology, from secular texts, from the bible itself, we know the bible is (wildly inaccurate) historical fiction (So why should we accept it's least plausible claims?),
(...I could go on, but you get the picture...)
we can therefore say there is an overwhelming probability that if there is even so much as one god, he's probably never tried to contact humans. All the gods we know of are equally man-made, especially the judeo-christian pantheon of gods, lesser gods, demigods, and god-men.
Post a Comment