The latest Journal that is out for January 2016 is filed with glowing tributes to Ron Dart. One of the articles is by Ian Boyne from a branch of the Church of God International that is based in Jamaica. He starts his article by immediately discussing this blog and how all of the unscrupulous readers here somehow found time to have kind words about Ron Dart.
KINGSTON, Jamaica—Perhaps the most telling indication of the caliber, character and com- passion of Ronald Lee Dart happened on the day of his death (Jan. 23, 2016).
When his death was announced on the leading anti–Church of God blog (run by Gary Leonard at armstrong ismlibrary.blogspot.co.nz) there was an outpouring of respect for his life and regret over his death expressed by visitors to the blog.
Some of those guys on that blog can be crude, callous and cryptic, but Ron Dart was spared their vitriol, and not because of any polite notion that one must not speak evil of the dead. Those guys hold no such scruples.
For those who don't remember the definition behind unscrupulous (which is what he called everyone here) it is this:
un·scru·pu·lousˌənˈskro͞opyələs/
adjectivehaving or showing no moral principles; not honest or fair.
synonyms:
unprincipled, unethical, immoral, conscienceless, shameless, reprobate,
exploitative, corrupt, dishonest, dishonorable, deceitful, devious,
underhanded, unsavory, disreputable, evil, wicked, villainous, Machiavellian
This accusation is rich coming from a writer for the the Journal which is filled with some of the most unchristian and idiotic paid advertising that can be imaginable. What valid articles the Journal may have are undermined by these advertisements. Add to that the Journal's refusal to allow anyone to present an alternate view or debunk the trojan-horse of Armstrongism - British Israelism.
For decades now the Church of God has been led by some of the most immoral, unscrupulous, corrupt, dishonest, deceitful and odious men imaginable. Even the Church of God International, of which Boyne is part of, was founded by an immoral, corrupt, shameless reprobate who could not keep his pants zipped, had no problem gambling members tithe money at casinos around the world, contributed to child abuse in the church which his absurd child rearing teachings, and mentally and spiritually abused members and employees. That is certainly some legacy to carry on.
I had no idea a few years ago that this blog would ever have hit 3.25 million hits in a few short years. Nor would I dream it would average 400 new visitors every single day within the 1,200-2,000 daily hits it may receive.
Living Church of God members have found this blog to be the only source of information about the terrible abuses going on in their church. While I certainly wish they would leave the church and find true freedom, I also see why so many stay in because of familial ties and friendships. I have no doubt that there are many sincere Christians in the LCG who truly do want to serve God with all their heart. Both of these reasons are why I give them unfettered access here both in articles they submit and comments.
Its not my fault that the Church of God is filled with so many unscrupulous ministers, evangelists and outright frauds who continue to abuse and steal members money to build their own little
mini-Ambassador campuses trying to recapture the glory days of old.
If the Journal, Ian and others truly believe they are doing God's work then why do they not shout from the mountain tops and expose the abuse that Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, Rod Meredith and others are committing on a daily basis? They know the evil that exists in these groups and yet do nothing. Why are the years of false prophecies by Dave Pack, Ron Weinland, Gerald Flurry and Rod Meredith never exposed? As usual in COGland, its all rainbows, lollipops and cotton candy.
50 comments:
For 16 glorious hours, dnarefutesbi.com was advertised on The Journal website. It was unimaginable, beyond belief.
And then Dixon Cartwright lowered the boom, took off the ad and closed the doors to advertising in The Journal forever.
Yet -- and we found this out later -- he doesn't believe in British Israelism.
Until you understand that the goal is to keep the social groups together then the policies make no sense. When you understand that the social group is sacrosanct, no matter how nutty the beliefs, then you will understand the position of those in control of the information from the Armstrongists.
Goes to show that everyone has their own perspectives, and normal m.o is "hooray for our side!" And, yes, Ron cut across many of the factional lines.
My own language is much toned down from that of my biker buddies, but our posters run the gambit from downright prudish to out and out blasphemous. If Jesus were in a current incarnation, and posting here, He'd cross the lines and speak with all of us, taking into consideration our human frailties and backgrounds. Perhaps the people who paricipate here do so because they realize exactly that.
BB
Concerning Ronald Dart -- I am extremely unimpressed: The man seems to have pushed tithing pretty hard on his "Born to Win" site (a site, which I must add, turns out to be one of the slowest loading Wordpress site EVER, with no attempts at all to streamline it -- the problem partly seems to be those audio files load up along with the web pages and TAKE ABSOLUTELY FOREVER). He also supported British Israelism (I did a search on 'BRITISH' -- took forever!): "…the case that the United States and the British Commonwealth are actually the ethnic descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, the two sons of Joseph, the son of Israel." It's a sermon audio file ("Who's Who in Prophecy #1"). This alone puts him in the category of a moron, no matter how pleasant and personable he may sound or even be with his mellifluous voice, reminiscent of Hugh Downs, a long-time American broadcaster, television host, news anchor, TV producer, author, game show host, and music composer.
No, here's what I think: Ron Dart mostly lived in his own little universe, buffered from the realities of the Radio Church of God and the Worldwide Church of God. His reality was that his life's work was giving sermons, which, darn it all, he was going to do until the day he died, come hell or high water. Well, that's fine as a hobby, as long as the rest of us don't have to pay for it and / or there's some real benefit to it.
Unfortunately, Born to Win, as benign as it may seem to be, is still a cult. The very best thing that you can say about a cult is that it is a waste of time and we sort of go downhill rapidly from there.
Also, very unfortunately, those who are in a cult (particularly those who are boozing alcoholics who do not recover from the cult until they recover from the boozing and suddenly find that they have nothing in common with the 'friends' they have in the cult without alcohol), do not realize they are in a cult. They will defend the moronic to their dying day because, well, darn it all, to do otherwise would to be to admitting that they have much less than stellar judgment -- and we just can't have that, can we? It's a matter of pride (to the point of hubris).
The real problem here is that even ex-Armstrongists confuse good feelings and emotions with facts and objectivity. Just because someone is nice and treats you well doesn't mean that they are not daft kooks. It is this sort of 'hook' that persuades people (we won't explicitly name here who are on the staff of The Journal) to be proponents of keeping the social order of alcohol based cults intact for the benefit (good feelings) of the cult members. If there were ever a case of bad judgment, this is it.
So the Armstrongists have their celebration of stupidity and are miffed and mystified that we aren't so very grateful for their attempts to indoctrinate us with their cult.
Ingrates!
Quite possibly one of the best posts on Banned by HWA.These COG leaders by their very leadership and behaviour are an affront to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.Evil abounds when good men do nothing.Will the Journal have the courage to truely expose the darkness committed in the name of God by these leaders in these groups.Will freedom and love of the light prevale or darkness.Over to you Journal.
This site reminds me of popular TV series like Operation Repo. In these series, they depict a immaturity/evil, affirmed it, and pass moral judgment on it. In GOGland, all three are taboo. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. This creates a utopia for its mafia church members and mafia ministers.
The Journal should put this on their masthead:
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/lacomplex/images/f/f4/Rainbow_Unicorn_and_Hippo.png/revision/latest%253Fcb%253D20120705081441&imgrefurl=http://lacomplex.wikia.com/wiki/File:Rainbow_Unicorn_and_Hippo.png&h=952&w=720&tbnid=kVeQ0noz6tmQbM:&docid=v_Uyc7-vWtxp9M&ei=8yG9Vvi9BczmjwOYnLOwBA&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0ahUKEwi4g5769vDKAhVM82MKHRjODEYQMwhZKBwwHA
I Google Ronald Dart. In one of his articles, he takes the position that church members are already paying third tithe through their government taxes. Hence, third tithe is unnecessary today. He wins my respect on this one. Todays greedy 'give us all your money' ministry doesn't agree. On this issue, the third tithe isn't impartially distributed, but weaponised. If you ever disagreed with a minister or are a better class of person, you will never get one cent back. Many are investing in a system that is a one way street. People are better off buying a life insurance policy rather than 'investing' in the church third tithe. It is after all, nothing more than a social security system.
The Journal has always tried to portray its self as the unifying rag of the scattered Churches of God who while divided by doctrine truly love one another as pilgrims on the way. This premise is entirely wrong. Every single one of the COG's is against the other. They and they alone have the correct doctrine and form of government. I am glad you pointed out the foolish articles in the journal. They truly do discredit any "truth" the Journal may actually provide.
"Daft kooks" is objective language? Remember folks, most of us were believers in Armstrongism once upon a time. Are we going to look over our shoulders and shout insults at the folks who are still enmeshed in that culture? Do you recall the painful journey that you made out of that system? Do you remember what it felt like when you finally admitted to yourself that you had been hoodwinked? Most of us are motivated by a desire to help those unfortunate souls - which underscores just how unjustified Mr. Boyne's use of the adjective "unscrupulous"was in describing those who contribute to this blog. By the way, Dixon has probably done more to promote a reconsideration of Armstrong's doctrines within that culture than any other single individual. Are we going to condemn him for financing that effort by accepting advertising from such colorful folks? I guess he could tell his audience in no uncertain terms that they are a bunch of morons and walk away! Would that help?
Anonymous 4:07 PM -- but where are the lollipops?
No masthead would be complete without something to drive diabetes into the danger zone.
Dixon has probably done more to promote a reconsideration of Armstrong's doctrines within that culture than any other single individual
Wrong!
That would be John Trechak.
As for calling Armstrongists daft kooks, one need only to peruse chapter 3 "Kooks: A Guide to the Outer Limits of Human Belief" by Donna Kossy to understand its objective application, naming as it were, explicitly, Herbert Armstrong as a kook for British Israelism.
Ron Dart was who and what he was not because of Armstrongism, but in spite of it. Some innate sensibilities prevented him from becoming the flaming asshole that the church doctrines on government have caused most of the ministers to be. Without exception, the ACOG leaders have made changes to the doctrines taught by HWA. They may not admit to it, or they may excuse it, but they have. If you read what has been written about Dart, the chief change to which he admitted was made to church government. That is what set him apart.
His life and style in no way create some sort of endorsement for Armstrongism, or for any individual ACOG, whether it were a HWACOG, or a GTACOG.
BB
On the issue of third tithe, I find no reference to it in the New Testament. Feel free to correct me anyone. No mention of Christ paying it either.
I thought maybe Gary Leonard would like the fact that I made sure his URL appeared in Ian's article. Silly me. --Dixon Cartwright
Re Black Ops Dougie Becker's comment, above: The 16 glorious hours he spoke of were a period in which my site linked to the usual brand of vitriol of people in the anti-Armstrongism movement. As I told B.O. at the time, I had no problem helping him to proclaim his unhappiness with COG folks and their opinions. My problem was the hateful and tantrum-throwing way he says everything, including and especially the uncontrollable rage he radiated in his ad. You have my permission and encouragement, Dougie, to post my response to your venom, which I sent you at the time. It helps flesh out the Dougie Becker bedtime story. --Dixon Cartwright
Good grief Dixon lighten up! Why are you being so pissy? Embarrassed because of those paid advertisements? Money does speak after all.
You just had to go and burst that bubble of Christian love at the Journal.
"People are better off buying a life insurance policy rather than 'investing' in the church third tithe. It is after all, nothing more than a social security system."
That's how it was always touted, but it became in reality a piggy bank for high living by Herbert and to a lesser extent other ministers, the gravy getting thinner and thinner as the ranks decreased.
You know, it's just amazing -- someone so tapped into Armstrongism with an outstanding reputation within the Armstrong social community -- that someone with a 'respected' position deemed to be one of honor, projecting the image of someone objective, fair and balanced would come on Banned and act so childishly.
Some people are so borderline as to absolutely NEED the respect and admiration of others that they go ballistic at just the slightest provocation -- demanding proof but hoping that others will accept less from them: The very picture of the Suspicious Point of View, not to mention the mindset of a bully, but we have to expect such things from those 'important' people within the ranks of Armstrongism, don't we?
Well, I wouldn't get all hot and bothered about it... and risk another heart attack, if I were them.
One other thing. All those hits on this site are probably from people like me who check it at least once a day and usually several times to see what's going on. Not that I'm really involved in any of it. It just had such a profound effect on my life that it's sort of a compulsion to keep abreast of at least a little of what is going on. Personally, I've never subscribed to the journal and have only checked in online a few times. I get most of my info here and from The Painful Truth.
I am certainly disappointed in Dixon's reaction here. After all of these years he sure has thin skin.
As to third tithe in the HWA mode, there isn't such a truth in the entire Bible. What's third is the year, not the tithe. Scripture indicates Israel gave 10% of an annual harvest/produce every third year to Levites and others who may have been about 3.3% of the population, meaning the equivalent of 3.3% a year's harvest or 10% every 3 years was given to 3.3 or so % of the population.
Dixon tackled the greatest sacred cow of Armstrongism and Evangelical Christianity: the inerrancy of Scripture - the very thing that underpins the entire system. He has addressed Church government and the role of women within the culture. And I will never forget his willingness to present an alternative view of human sexuality (I know a few atheists who are closer to the Armstrong position on that one). How many folks in our former culture have been willing to reconsider their views on that one!
I agree with Black Ops: in the final analysis..
Ron Dart was a cultic Anglo-Israelite Moron
who prefered little thin Herbie booklets to visiting the Library
Well that was certainly thoughtful and objective - no emotionalism here!
6:59 PM Third tithe was mainly for the orphans and widows. The Levites already had the first tithe. People like Dave Pack and others still demand their followers pay third tithe to their church. I wouldn't mind hearing how they justify this. As I said, I find no mention of it in the NT. I know that whilst I was in the church, I would not have got one cent if I was hit by a truck and made a paraplegic. Yet I was paying third tithe. This was because of a Cain (the minister) versus Abel (me) attitude that the minister had toward me. Looking back, I feel robbed.
HWA last ruling for all the European churches was the abolishment of 3rd tithe for Europe's excessive social system and taxing accordingly (sometimes exceeding 60 70 percent) . Because this was announced in the same announcements his passing was announced I was never completely sure if it in reality was the first Tkach ruling. I go with the last ruling of HWA.
nck
Deuteronomy 26:12: tithes in the 3rd year were given to the Levites who were about 2% of the population: Numbers 31:30.
Nck a death bed repentance smells of a lawyers trick.
nck said "Because this was announced in the same announcements his passing was announced"
It was possibly mentioned then but he actually said it in the mid 70s, later many in the ministry tried to cover that up and never repeated it.
toby
One can search high and low on the subject of tithing and still only find that there was only one tithe, yet had three purposes. Tithes were set aside and taken to one of the three pilgrim feasts where the tither ate from the tithe and then gave what was left of it,to the Levites.
In the third tithe year, the tither did not go to the feasts, but instead they gave their tithe to the poor and the Levites.
The entire purpose of tithes in the first place had to do with the Levitical system. It was the taxation of the day until the day that a king was insisted upon, that also insisted for a tithe for himself.
Tithes were never collected in the assemblies of Yahshua. True ministers of Yahshua were to walk in faith and depend on Elohim for their support. Over time greedy men crept in and instituted a tithe for themselves and thus church business was born.
Now years later, we have hirelings with big fancy houses and fast foreign cars, who are living the abundant life, while their tithe slaves barely survive pay check to pay check.
Bravo! I agree with the above comment. This is the best post so far. It's time the COG stopped pandering to the kookiness of the Journal.
Toby,
I take issue with the word "never".
I was there when it was announced. Because of the European social system they had brought before Mr Armstrong that the required 3rd tithe was to be abolished. On the sabbath after his passing it was announced that hwa aknowledged this. And I agree that this was a formalization of earlier thought in the mid seventies. Judging from other comments here it was the first decision of the coup d etat perpetrators. But I'm not sure 'cause as Toby confirms hwa had already acknowledged the "social" instead of "religious" nature of the third tithe system earlier.
nck
12.42 AM. Have you read the scriptures you mentioned? Deuteronomy 26;12 tells us that only part of the 3rd tithe goes to the Levites.
Deu 26:12 Every year you are to give ten percent of your harvest to the LORD. But every third year, this ten percent must be given to the poor who live in your town, including Levites, foreigners, orphans, and widows. That way, they will have enough to eat.
According to your Nunbers verse, the Levites got 2% (a tithe by definition is 3%) of the spoils the battle mentioned. There is no mention of a third tithe here.
Numbers 31:30 From the half that belongs to the people, set aside one out of every fifty and give these to the Levites in charge of the sacred tent.
Are you a minster? Is that you Dave? Not forgetting, the church members are expected to third tithe gross of their income, meaning before taking deductions for expenses, taxes, or the like.
I'm happy any time this site is mentioned. I was blind but now I see. The more ACOG people that visit this site, the better. There's no such thing as bad public for Banned. It all leads to increased traffic which might help others who are in blind submission to tyrants like Meredith start to wake up to the facts.
Did I mention that Ron Dart was a fundamentalist Moron.
A comment to me as a Freshman by Ronald Dart in Bricket Wood in 1968. "Don't ask me for help. I don't do helping others". I was truly shocked by his attitude. Lording it over the students and refusing to lift a finger to help others. Such an oppressive Dean of Students treating people with degrees like they were nine year olds. When he left for Pasadena in '69 the whole atmosphere on campus changed for the better. Most people felt "Good riddance you oppressor!".
Ian is one of the harder-core CGI ministers.
Dixon wrote: "I had no problem helping him to proclaim his unhappiness with COG folks and their opinions. My problem was the hateful and tantrum-throwing way he says everything, including and especially the uncontrollable rage he radiated in his ad."
Yes, he does have anger at times, but what about Jan Young and his vitriol that you fill your pages up with every month. He is just as obnoxious or worse. I don't see any of his advertisements disappearing anytime soon.
10:52~ there is pro-HWA gospel mold anger, and there is anti-HWA gospel mold anger and vitriol. You are allowed freedom of expression in pro-Armstrong sites if you are playing to the choir, but not if you attempt to take them to task, to challenge the basic cruddy belief system, or to hold them accountable in any way.
As an example, if someone did a comic strip called "Who's Your Daddy?" featuring Herbie and Dottie, it would be rejected even if you were willing to pay $10,000 for the ad.
BB
To Anonymous, Anonymous and Anonymous: Maybe you're right about my bones showing through my skin. Sorry. How would I compare B.O. Dougie with Jan Aaron Young? Jan is more polite than Dougie. By the way, don't you guys have names? Thank you for your time. P.S.: Who's Your Daddy?, B.B.: Could you send me a draft of your cartoon idea for me to consider? I'd have to see it before accepting your $10,000. --Dixon Cartwright
Dixon Cartwright, the reason people here use Anonymous, is for our safety. People warm up to those who tell them lies and distortions, but hate those who speak the truth. I started putting comments on the web many years ago using Anonymous. Former church members discerned who I was. The result? Demonic verbal rages from my neighbour (people gossip) and relatives. These were attempts on my life. You by contrast, could probably put your home address and phone number here, and still be safe.
Minimalist...8:09...Did I mention that it is you that comes across as a moron, instead of judging, criticizing, and slamming others, tell us what You are talking about and why instead of putting someone in a bad light with no explaination.
Some not very bright people confuse anger with a vicious sense of humor.
It's hilarious to see such childish reactions.
Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson in an episode of the reboot of Cosmos gave the disturbing story of how the world was being poisoned by lead (because of corporate greed). It turns out that when lead gets into the brain, it displaces other elements and blocks signals between the neurons. People thus poisoned have lower IQs and may have anger issues.
One wonders whether working on a linotype machine for a long time with all the vapor from all those hot lead slugs may be an explanation for some of what we've seen here....
I wish I could work as a temp at Dave's admin building for a couple days. I'd disconnect his heating and air conditioning duct work, and reroute the duct from the exhaust fan in the men's room into Dave's office in its place. If past experience with this type of payback is any guide, it would take months before they discovered the source of the noxious odors! It would be a really appropriate environment for Dave to have to work in.
Note: this is intended only for humor. Don't try it at home (unless you wear gloves to avoid leaving finger prints!)
BB
BB,
For those that are not so technically inclined.
Taping dead shrimp at the lower end of the curtains would create additional effects.
This could also serve as an additional bonus during a divorce and the wife is likely to get the house...
nck
8.42 I don't believe that even children confuse anger with humour. And that's any type of humour .
Anonymous at 8.42 said, "I don't believe that even children confuse anger with humour. And that's any type of humour ."
Well, at least when it comes to politics and religion, I can think of examples where that's not true. When it comes to those subjects, people can be extremely invested in a belief, and interpret a humorous lampooning as hatred.
(Especially when the holder of the belief believes himself to be in a special category of humans who are saving the world or have an inside track to a deity via their special knowledge or faith.)
I thought the episodes of South Park that skewered Mormonism and Scientology were absolutely hilarious, yet members of those religions considered those episodes to be hateful. Scientologist Isaac Hayes, who gave voice to the 'Chef' character, even quit the show in protest.
Similarly, I've found The Colbert Report and The Daily Show to be hilarious, while many on the right wing of the political spectrum deem those shows to be hateful.
In response to the "...even children..." comment, I'd posit that the satirical palettes of people like George Orwell, Samuel Clemens, Geoffrey Chaucer, Plato and Jonathan Swift- to name but a few- are too advanced for younger citizens' sense of appreciation.
The beauty of humor is in the ears of the beholder.
But heck, if a religious person is especially touchy about humorous criticism, they usually have the 'Linus blanket' of 'knowing' the Offensive Ones shall be cast into Gehenna fire by the deity.
(Or, just strap on a bomb and kill the Offensive Ones proactively in a holy suicide mission.)
LOL!
In response to the "...even children..." comment, I'd posit that the satirical palettes of people like George Orwell, Samuel Clemens, Geoffrey Chaucer, Plato and Jonathan Swift- to name but a few- are too advanced for younger citizens' sense of appreciation.
I remember around 1978 (maybe 1977 or 1979) one of the activities at our Feast site was watching the animated movie Animal Farm.
(The years before we had Fiddler on the Roof and of course The Sting (pasadena located))
Animal Farm sticks out to me. All adults seemed quite amused. And most children liked the colorful animals.
nck
Post a Comment