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
If by not literally true, Dennis implies false,then BB is entirely correct in his rejecting such a false dichotomy and implicit Fundanentalist thinking. Ian Boyne
"Not literally true" means "isn't an historical event that really occurred in space and time." A myth, no matter the meaning assigned to it, is still a myth and is false to think of it as having actually happened.
Somehow I knew BB and Ian could not answer a simple question simply without comment and apologetic qualification of the terms.
"Sorry, I refuse to follow the instructions of even an ex-minister from Armstrongism."
LOL So dramatic...How about a simple question from a kid growing up in the Dutch Reformed Church?
We'll take Ian and BB's stance to be "Yes, the story of Adam and Eve is literally true in some non literally true way but yes, literally true depending on what you mean by literally."
Reminds me of sitting in a discussion with Dr. Stavranedes (Sp) on "God Is.." with all his convoluted and intellectual answers to questions asked on the nature of the God, when someone finally sent in a question that also concluded with, "And try to include a "yes" or "no" in your answer." He couldn't. lol We all fell out on the floor laughing.
Dennis, don't get pissy when someone won't play with you. You should know very well why someone would opt to be cautious when presented with only fixed answers.
"Steve Falkenberg, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, observes:
I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat, it has pillars, and will not be moved (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26). ...[26]
Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative religion at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota, criticizes biblical literalism as a mentality that:
If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the "inerrancy" of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don’t find any scholars that subscribe to "Biblical inerrancy" (to my knowledge) on the show.[28]
— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series John Goldingay, focusing specifically on inerrancy, summarizes the concern this way:
"A stress on [biblical] inerrancy cannot safeguard people from a slippery slope that carries them from abandoning inerrancy to an eventual reneging on all other Christian doctrines. Indeed, it more likely impels them toward such a slope. The claim that scripture is factually inerrant sets up misleading expectations regarding the precision of narratives and then requires such far-fetched defenses... that it presses people toward rejecting it." [163] I think the same dynamic applies not only to inerrancy specifically but to biblicism more generally.
In such cases, the difficulty is not necessarily the fact of antibiblicist critiques per se. The real problem is the particular biblicist theory about the Bible; it not only makes young believers vulnerable to being disabused of their naive acceptance of that theory but it also often has the additional consequence of putting their faith commitments at risk. Biblicism often paints smart, committed youth into a corner that is for real reasons impossible to occupy for many of those who actually confront its problems. When some of those youth give up on biblicism and simply walk across the wet paint, it is flawed biblicism that is partly responsible for those losses of faith.
Insofar as these biblicism-caused outcomes are undesirable and unnecessary, we have another good reason to seek better alternatives to biblicism. In this Peter Enns is correct: "We do not honor the Lord nor do we uphold the gospel by playing make-believe." [164]
Biblicism simply cannot be practiced with intellectual and practical honesty on its own terms. It is in this sense literally impossible.[29] — Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture"
In a court of law, an attorney is permitted to control a hostile witness by asking yes or no questions. In many cases, such questions cannot 100% truthfully be answered by a simple yes or no. This device can easily become a trap in the hands of a prosecutor, or aid in the construction of a strawman in a debate.
Most people who are in the business of persuading others do not appreciate analytical listeners who are thinking several moves ahead.
Banned is this awesome forum in which we all get to express opinions, and share pertinent things that we have learned along the way. Gary maintains it in such a way that it's not a classroom or a kind of an anti-church in which someone of opposing views fails or gets put out. Nobody here is going to receive an "F" for continuing to believe in God, or believing that at some point in time God dropped the first "God-conscious" humans somewhere on to the Mesopotamian peninsula.
It is important to make these distinctions, because members of ACOGs who have questions about some of their church's doctrines or leaders should not be made to feel that the only accepted, logical, or prudent path of recovery involves giving up God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. There are acceptable alternatives to that, such as discovering a better concept of God than was taught in Armstrongism, and deeper understanding of the Bible. Mythicism is theory just as much as British Israelism, Simon Magus, or church eras. It constitutes the same basic pattern of thought or logic, but is simply applied to the other side of things once taught.
No, The Story of Adam and Eve is not literally true.
Why? Just a little thing called science, that's all.
Our ancestors went through 2 separate bottlenecks. The first bottleneck occurred about three million years ago, when a larger population declined to around 10,000 individuals. The second bottleneck is associated with a reduced population size as humans left Africa. For Chinese, Korean, and European genomes, effective population size fell from about 13,500 (at 150,000 years ago) to about 1200 between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago.
We never went through a bottleneck of anything near 2 individuals, as the biblical Adam-and-Eve story suggest, or even 5, as the biblical deluge suggests. This means religious people have to either try to save that story, turning it, into a metaphor or else hold the research in abeyance, presuming that the researchers must have screwed up because Jesus couldn't have died for a metaphor. Absent their literal existence, the whole story of human sin and redemption falls to pieces. Literalists think they can rescue it by simple obtuseness of one form or another. That's like assuming that you can murder your wife and avoid prison by just denying it in front of judge and jury, and that they'll take your stupid excuse for a story over the forensic evidence that says you're guilty. They won't. Reality is not altered one iota by the stupid stories you might tell yourself.
"Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences." Heng Li & Richard Durbin. Nature 475, 493–496 (28 July 2011).
Hurting my cause? I certainly couldn't spoon-feed my children either of the two pre-fab answers which Dennis presented.
Trust me. He's either building a strawman, or he plans to use this survey as a teaching lesson. I agree with him on the things which I can, but turn stone cold the minute manipulation becomes evident.
Why even ask such a question and frame it so narrowly in this manner? Well, if you get to frame the discussion, you automatically set yourself up as the winner. No thanks. Been there and already experienced that.
Sorry, Dennis. I'm not going to play your game, or allow you to define the terms. And, I don't give a hot, steaming crap what you or your collection of acolytes has to say about it.
What a bunch of BS. So obvious that the Adam and Eve story is make believe. The answer is so simple. It is pathetic when adults hold on to the childish beliefs and argue about what is real. Sounds like the COG ministers. What's even worse is that adults keep going back for more. And they pay for lavish life styles, jet airplanes, and fancy houses for those who deceive them. Like pimps and hoes. I think that after so much time, people have invested a big part of their life in the false beliefs, so rather than accept the facts, the argue to justify the unbelievable that they cant go back on. Superstition, magic, miracle. It's hard to let go when one still has the inner child controlling their life. Kind of like holding on to GM stock as is plummeted down down down, "surely they would never go bankrupt! - Hold!" And many bought despite the death spiral. Does anyone remember how that turned out. And... what about the talking Donkey, true or false? And the big fish that swallowed Jonah, true or false? And Lazareth, true or false?, and many more. Do you really believe that too? :/
You know how in the old days, forum moderators used to set up special folders so that believers could discuss the Bible amongst themselves? Well, I think it may be time to set up a special non-believer folder where atheists and agnostics get to bounce and discuss their reassuring theories amongst themselves.
The people experiencing second thoughts about Armstrongism are tuning our community here out because they sense a constant and out of balance effort to sell them on rejecting God. And, frankly, that's exactly what their leaders have said would happen if they ever left "God's True Church". This isn't the Ambassador College Atheist Correspondence Course, with guided approved conclusions leading people to reject God. That decision should be peoples's personal choice, not something they get hard sold into.
Black and White. Yes or No. For or Against. There are only TWO possible answers to any question, and only ONE of them is correct/right! Hmmmm, sounds familiar.
Bob, how would you actually answer the real question if someone you liked or you thought you could help asked? How simple is that to ask of you?
Something either happened literally as written or not. Perhaps an allegory? Perhaps a metaphor? Can't you commit to an opinion or view on this simple question? Others did just fine
You should contribute postings here on the proper way to view the Bible for COG refugees if you fear others are confusing them inappropriately. Gary would love to hear from you I believe.
If it were literal, rather than a description of a situation then there would be a literal tree of life that a Christian would have to eat from in a literal fashion. Also we would have a literal tree of the knowledge of good and evil to eat from as well. Both trees are symbolically available to humans throughout history.
And correct me if I misunderstood BB but you don't mind if others come here to escape Armstrong but draw the line at that experience causing some to ask bigger questions about the Bible as presented by literalism and evangelical fundamentalists? Right?
When someone so clearly has an agenda for asking a question, that's when alarms start ringing in my mind.
You only have to read a handful of Dennis's articles to realise the agenda he is pushing.
So we must 'give our answer without commentary', must we? We only have a choice of two answers, have we?
And if someone doesn't obey the rules, then Dennis says "We'll take Ian and BB's stance to be "Yes, the story of Adam and Eve is literally true...."
I didn't realise this forum was a court of law, and if someone declines to play the game, then Judge Dennis decides for the person what answer they would have given.
I thought this was a forum for discussion, not a witch hunt to see who still might have some belief in God.
I was just curious as to the make up of the readers personally so thought I'd ask. What drama, suspicion, innuendo and defensiveness a simple question can arouse. Who knew...
And Santa is for real! The proof is in photos, songs, he has been seen live and in person in many places, he travels around the world and give presents to good boys and girls every Christmas eve. And he watches over us and makes a list and naughty boys and girls don't get presents, so you better be good for goodness sake! Even though part of me wants to believe that and part of me doesn't want to admit that it's not true, I refuse to answer yes or no because it's my right to BELEIVE whatever I want to and you have no right to make me give up my delusional thinking!
If they ask those questions, Dennis, fine. But most of them are not, so it appears as if this site is force-feeding non-belief on them. And, Some posters assume that you and Gary hold the same beliefs, not realizing that he attends a Christian church, and even teaches classes there.
Oh bullshit, Dennis. Seriously? The "drama, suspicion, innuendo and defensiveness" was caused by you and you alone when, instead of simply passing over BB and Ians comments, you chose to attempt chastising them. You could have even defused it hours ago with a simple "Just curious, like the header says". But instead you chose to mock, grumble and complain because not everyone was lining up the way you wanted.
Wow! Heh heh... Just finished reading this absolutely fabulous enlightening Q&A-session, Discussion, Interaction, or something in that vain, and am utterly and totally Gobsmacked, Godsmacked, Cogsmacked, Whatever... heh heh... Take your pick, at least you've got three choices and not only two heh heh, no, actually ROTFLMFAO!
No, the story of Adam and Eve [as recorded in the Bible] is not literally true, but...
My opinion, for what it's worth. The folks who have questions about just what the heck is going on in their ACOG check in here because they know that Gary has the news!
If Jerry Weston proclaims that church women must return to using feminine napkins because tampons are in spirit fornication or adultery, it will be reported here. If David Pack announces that he is now Melchizedek, you'll see it first here at Banned. And if James Malm bans feathers because Native Americans used them in their rituals with spirit animals and the grandfathers, you're going to read about it here.
If we listen to what the LCG anonymous posters are telling us, though, they don't want to be force-fed a constant diet of theories refuting God and the Bible. And, that's all they are at the end of the day. They are the scholars' best guesses. You really can't prove a negative, anyway.
Just for the record, I don't believe in a literal Genesis Adam and Eve.
(9:48 PM) It was interesting to see BB, one of our hard believers evade the answer to a simple question. It is so much like the God/No God answer the Christians adhere to. There is no proof for the existence of God so the next jump is to obfuscation and subject changing.
It reminds me of Daniel Dennett's observation when the God/No God subject comes up:
"...discussions of the existence of God tend to take place in a pious fog of indeterminate boundaries." (In Breaking the Spell, p210.)
(11:02 PM) BB is attempting to change the subject and his co-believer, Mr. Boyne is backing him up by suggesting a false dichotomy wave off. Which one of the yes or no responses is the part of a false dichotomy? Have you one sentence? Can you speak it BB, while standing on one foot? I've read your letters for years and never saw you prove the Christian God exists. Lack of proof is akin no evidence, no reason to believe.
I don't know what BB means by a "non-believer folder". I've read 30 books on atheism. The first two broke me free. The rest were supporting commentary against belief in the Christian God. Has anyone here read a book proving belief in God? I mean showing a God does exist? Even Joe Jr. admitted atheism is correct with the standard escape hatch of faith. And "faith is pretending to know something you don't know." Said one author. HWA,s little booklet "Does God Exist "was not based on being educated on the subject. I'll bet that true believers still refer to it.
(1:38 PM) One of the anons defends his right to be delusional with make-believe. If one speaks to God he is praying. If one has a god speaking to him he is delusional.
(5:05 PM) BB admits you cannot prove a negative anyway. If that means the inability to prove God does not exist I'll take that statement. I've been asked for years to prove there is no God. First off tell me what you, BB, or anyone will accept as proof God does not exist? Do that then I'll go and get the proof. Yeah, it ain't easy. So, proof of God not existing is unlikely yet believers still ask for that to be produced after I ask them to prove he does.
Just how would anyone prove that a non-existent thing does not indeed, exist?
The gods may have the last laugh, because the problem with evolution is, it doesn't work
God may do things in forward & backward time: That is starting with final perfect product (Adam & Eve) and allowing deEvolution (the only kind of evolution that works)(decaying entropy) over 3 billion earth years, ending in an earthly inferno of fire (so the ending, we perceive in our restricted forward time as the “beginning”) . Thus when the bible starts out with “In the beginning”, it is really the ending when the earth will be consumed by fire (II Peter 3:10)
Mankind went through several bottlenecks, genewise and geographically. The book of Genesis looks like an excellent "oral" tradition describing the bottleneck transition from hunter gatherer to agricultural societies and the plagues that go along with such transition. And mankind being in need to stem those plagues by a God that is exactly defined by those plagues that accompany such transition from "the free roaming hunter gatherer paradise, to the evils of working in sweat for a potatoe to be harvested on the set time, date and moment.
I've put some more "evidence" supporting this theory on the newer "adam and eve" thread.
53 comments:
No, The Story of Adam and Eve is not literally true
No, The Story of Adam and Eve is not literally true
No, The Story of Adam and Eve is not literally true
No, The Story of Adam and Eve is not literally true
No, The Story of Adam and Eve is not literally true
Yes, The Story of Adam and Eve is literally true
No, The Story of Adam and Eve is not literally true
No, The Story of Adam and Eve is not literally true
Yes, the story of Adam and Eve is true.
No, The Story of Adam and Eve is not literally true
Sorry, I refuse to follow the instructions of even an ex-minister from Armstrongism. This issue is irreducible to binary simplicity.
BB
Yes, The Story of Adam and Eve is literally true
If by not literally true, Dennis implies false,then BB is entirely correct in his rejecting such a false dichotomy and implicit Fundanentalist thinking. Ian Boyne
If it's not literally true, that means it didn't really happen. Simple enough, no?
Abstain - in agreement with BB.
"Not literally true" means "isn't an historical event that really occurred in space and time." A myth, no matter the meaning assigned to it, is still a myth and is false to think of it as having actually happened.
Somehow I knew BB and Ian could not answer a simple question simply without comment and apologetic qualification of the terms.
"Sorry, I refuse to follow the instructions of even an ex-minister from Armstrongism."
LOL So dramatic...How about a simple question from a kid growing up in the Dutch Reformed Church?
We'll take Ian and BB's stance to be "Yes, the story of Adam and Eve is literally true in some non literally true way but yes, literally true depending on what you mean by literally."
The Story of Adam and Eve must be true. It's in the BOOK!
Hows that logic?
Reminds me of sitting in a discussion with Dr. Stavranedes (Sp) on "God Is.." with all his convoluted and intellectual answers to questions asked on the nature of the God, when someone finally sent in a question that also concluded with, "And try to include a "yes" or "no" in your answer." He couldn't. lol We all fell out on the floor laughing.
Dennis, don't get pissy when someone won't play with you. You should know very well why someone would opt to be cautious when presented with only fixed answers.
"Steve Falkenberg, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, observes:
I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat, it has pillars, and will not be moved (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26). ...[26]
Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative religion at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota, criticizes biblical literalism as a mentality that:
If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the "inerrancy" of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don’t find any scholars that subscribe to "Biblical inerrancy" (to my knowledge) on the show.[28]
— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series
John Goldingay, focusing specifically on inerrancy, summarizes the concern this way:
"A stress on [biblical] inerrancy cannot safeguard people from a slippery slope that carries them from abandoning inerrancy to an eventual reneging on all other Christian doctrines. Indeed, it more likely impels them toward such a slope. The claim that scripture is factually inerrant sets up misleading expectations regarding the precision of narratives and then requires such far-fetched defenses... that it presses people toward rejecting it." [163] I think the same dynamic applies not only to inerrancy specifically but to biblicism more generally.
In such cases, the difficulty is not necessarily the fact of antibiblicist critiques per se. The real problem is the particular biblicist theory about the Bible; it not only makes young believers vulnerable to being disabused of their naive acceptance of that theory but it also often has the additional consequence of putting their faith commitments at risk. Biblicism often paints smart, committed youth into a corner that is for real reasons impossible to occupy for many of those who actually confront its problems. When some of those youth give up on biblicism and simply walk across the wet paint, it is flawed biblicism that is partly responsible for those losses of faith.
Insofar as these biblicism-caused outcomes are undesirable and unnecessary, we have another good reason to seek better alternatives to biblicism. In this Peter Enns is correct: "We do not honor the Lord nor do we uphold the gospel by playing make-believe." [164]
Biblicism simply cannot be practiced with intellectual and practical honesty on its own terms. It is in this sense literally impossible.[29]
— Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
Sorry, the question cannot be answered as asked:
How the wrong definition of 'literally' sneaked into the dictionary.
I guess you could say that it is literally impossible to answer the question.
Could the story of Adam and Eve be true?
The story of the Exodus wasn't true, why start now with Adam and Eve?
In a court of law, an attorney is permitted to control a hostile witness by asking yes or no questions. In many cases, such questions cannot 100% truthfully be answered by a simple yes or no. This device can easily become a trap in the hands of a prosecutor, or aid in the construction of a strawman in a debate.
Most people who are in the business of persuading others do not appreciate analytical listeners who are thinking several moves ahead.
BB
And why is Dennis being "pissy" where BB is not? It is a simple question
"Pastor Jones, did the first woman really really come from a rib?"
"Well Suzy, yes but that depends on what you mean by "really" and "rib"
😉
Banned is this awesome forum in which we all get to express opinions, and share pertinent things that we have learned along the way. Gary maintains it in such a way that it's not a classroom or a kind of an anti-church in which someone of opposing views fails or gets put out. Nobody here is going to receive an "F" for continuing to believe in God, or believing that at some point in time God dropped the first "God-conscious" humans somewhere on to the Mesopotamian peninsula.
It is important to make these distinctions, because members of ACOGs who have questions about some of their church's doctrines or leaders should not be made to feel that the only accepted, logical, or prudent path of recovery involves giving up God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. There are acceptable alternatives to that, such as discovering a better concept of God than was taught in Armstrongism, and deeper understanding of the Bible. Mythicism is theory just as much as British Israelism, Simon Magus, or church eras. It constitutes the same basic pattern of thought or logic, but is simply applied to the other side of things once taught.
BB
Jeez Bob...it's a simple Bible question any thinking kid would ask. Answer the actual question if you are capable
BB you're hurting your cause. What would your answer be if your kids asked you the question?
BB may be, but Dennis' harping over it is uncalled for. Dennis, of all people, should understand that position.
Jeez Louise.
No, The Story of Adam and Eve is not literally true.
Why? Just a little thing called science, that's all.
Our ancestors went through 2 separate bottlenecks. The first bottleneck occurred about three million years ago, when a larger population declined to around 10,000 individuals. The second bottleneck is associated with a reduced population size as humans left Africa. For Chinese, Korean, and European genomes, effective population size fell from about 13,500 (at 150,000 years ago) to about 1200 between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago.
We never went through a bottleneck of anything near 2 individuals, as the biblical Adam-and-Eve story suggest, or even 5, as the biblical deluge suggests. This means religious people have to either try to save that story, turning it, into a metaphor or else hold the research in abeyance, presuming that the researchers must have screwed up because Jesus couldn't have died for a metaphor. Absent their literal existence, the whole story of human sin and redemption falls to pieces. Literalists think they can rescue it by simple obtuseness of one form or another. That's like assuming that you can murder your wife and avoid prison by just denying it in front of judge and jury, and that they'll take your stupid excuse for a story over the forensic evidence that says you're guilty. They won't. Reality is not altered one iota by the stupid stories you might tell yourself.
"Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences." Heng Li & Richard Durbin. Nature 475, 493–496 (28 July 2011).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/nature10231.html
No, The Story of Adam and Eve is not literally true
Hurting my cause? I certainly couldn't spoon-feed my children either of the two pre-fab answers which Dennis presented.
Trust me. He's either building a strawman, or he plans to use this survey as a teaching lesson. I agree with him on the things which I can, but turn stone cold the minute manipulation becomes evident.
Why even ask such a question and frame it so narrowly in this manner? Well, if you get to frame the discussion, you automatically set yourself up as the winner. No thanks. Been there and already experienced that.
BB
Sorry, Dennis. I'm not going to play your game, or allow you to define the terms. And, I don't give a hot, steaming crap what you or your collection of acolytes has to say about it.
BB
What a bunch of BS. So obvious that the Adam and Eve story is make believe. The answer is so simple. It is pathetic when adults hold on to the childish beliefs and argue about what is real. Sounds like the COG ministers. What's even worse is that adults keep going back for more. And they pay for lavish life styles, jet airplanes, and fancy houses for those who deceive them. Like pimps and hoes. I think that after so much time, people have invested a big part of their life in the false beliefs, so rather than accept the facts, the argue to justify the unbelievable that they cant go back on. Superstition, magic, miracle. It's hard to let go when one still has the inner child controlling their life. Kind of like holding on to GM stock as is plummeted down down down, "surely they would never go bankrupt! - Hold!" And many bought despite the death spiral. Does anyone remember how that turned out. And... what about the talking Donkey, true or false? And the big fish that swallowed Jonah, true or false? And Lazareth, true or false?, and many more. Do you really believe that too? :/
You know how in the old days, forum moderators used to set up special folders so that believers could discuss the Bible amongst themselves? Well, I think it may be time to set up a special non-believer folder where atheists and agnostics get to bounce and discuss their reassuring theories amongst themselves.
The people experiencing second thoughts about Armstrongism are tuning our community here out because they sense a constant and out of balance effort to sell them on rejecting God. And, frankly, that's exactly what their leaders have said would happen if they ever left "God's True Church". This isn't the Ambassador College Atheist Correspondence Course, with guided approved conclusions leading people to reject God. That decision should be peoples's personal choice, not something they get hard sold into.
BB
Black and White. Yes or No. For or Against. There are only TWO possible answers to any question, and only ONE of them is correct/right! Hmmmm, sounds familiar.
Some here are Deists.
Bob, how would you actually answer the real question if someone you liked or you thought you could help asked? How simple is that to ask of you?
Something either happened literally as written or not. Perhaps an allegory? Perhaps a metaphor? Can't you commit to an opinion or view on this simple question? Others did just fine
You should contribute postings here on the proper way to view the Bible for COG refugees if you fear others are confusing them inappropriately. Gary would love to hear from you I believe.
MJ. Bob won't give any answer . Complaining about asking the question is not an answer.
If it were literal, rather than a description of a situation then there would be a literal tree of life that a Christian would have to eat from in a literal fashion.
Also we would have a literal tree of the knowledge of good and evil to eat from as well.
Both trees are symbolically available to humans throughout history.
And correct me if I misunderstood BB but you don't mind if others come here to escape Armstrong but draw the line at that experience causing some to ask bigger questions about the Bible as presented by literalism and evangelical fundamentalists? Right?
When someone so clearly has an agenda for asking a question, that's when alarms start ringing in my mind.
You only have to read a handful of Dennis's articles to realise the agenda he is pushing.
So we must 'give our answer without commentary', must we? We only have a choice of two answers, have we?
And if someone doesn't obey the rules, then Dennis says "We'll take Ian and BB's stance to be "Yes, the story of Adam and Eve is literally true...."
I didn't realise this forum was a court of law, and if someone declines to play the game, then Judge Dennis decides for the person what answer they would have given.
I thought this was a forum for discussion, not a witch hunt to see who still might have some belief in God.
That being the case, Dennis, why don't you go ahead and tell us whatever you wanted to make of the results?
I was just curious as to the make up of the readers personally so thought I'd ask. What drama, suspicion, innuendo and defensiveness a simple question can arouse. Who knew...
And Santa is for real! The proof is in photos, songs, he has been seen live and in person in many places, he travels around the world and give presents to good boys and girls every Christmas eve. And he watches over us and makes a list and naughty boys and girls don't get presents, so you better be good for goodness sake! Even though part of me wants to believe that and part of me doesn't want to admit that it's not true, I refuse to answer yes or no because it's my right to BELEIVE whatever I want to and you have no right to make me give up my delusional thinking!
If they ask those questions, Dennis, fine. But most of them are not, so it appears as if this site is force-feeding non-belief on them. And, Some posters assume that you and Gary hold the same beliefs, not realizing that he attends a Christian church, and even teaches classes there.
BB
Oh bullshit, Dennis. Seriously? The "drama, suspicion, innuendo and defensiveness" was caused by you and you alone when, instead of simply passing over BB and Ians comments, you chose to attempt chastising them. You could have even defused it hours ago with a simple "Just curious, like the header says". But instead you chose to mock, grumble and complain because not everyone was lining up the way you wanted.
Heal thyself.
Wow! Heh heh... Just finished reading this absolutely fabulous enlightening Q&A-session, Discussion, Interaction, or something in that vain, and am utterly and totally Gobsmacked, Godsmacked, Cogsmacked, Whatever... heh heh... Take your pick, at least you've got three choices and not only two heh heh, no, actually ROTFLMFAO!
No, the story of Adam and Eve [as recorded in the Bible] is not literally true, but...
OK, OK, sorry, but I HAD to qualify 8-(
When confronted with such an overwhelming response and defense, I generally wonder if we're not dealing with someone's baby.
BB
My opinion, for what it's worth. The folks who have questions about just what the heck is going on in their ACOG check in here because they know that Gary has the news!
If Jerry Weston proclaims that church women must return to using feminine napkins because tampons are in spirit fornication or adultery, it will be reported here. If David Pack announces that he is now Melchizedek, you'll see it first here at Banned. And if James Malm bans feathers because Native Americans used them in their rituals with spirit animals and the grandfathers, you're going to read about it here.
If we listen to what the LCG anonymous posters are telling us, though, they don't want to be force-fed a constant diet of theories refuting God and the Bible. And, that's all they are at the end of the day. They are the scholars' best guesses. You really can't prove a negative, anyway.
BB
Just for the record, I don't believe in a literal Genesis Adam and Eve.
(9:48 PM)
It was interesting to see BB, one of our hard believers evade the answer to a simple question. It is so much like the God/No God answer the Christians adhere to. There is no proof for the existence of God so the next jump is to obfuscation and subject changing.
It reminds me of Daniel Dennett's observation when the God/No God subject comes up:
"...discussions of the existence of God tend to take place in a pious fog of indeterminate boundaries." (In Breaking the Spell, p210.)
(11:02 PM)
BB is attempting to change the subject and his co-believer, Mr. Boyne is backing him up by suggesting a false dichotomy wave off. Which one of the yes or no responses is the part of a false dichotomy? Have you one sentence? Can you speak it BB, while standing on one foot? I've read your letters for years and never saw you prove the Christian God exists. Lack of proof is akin no evidence, no reason to believe.
I don't know what BB means by a "non-believer folder". I've read 30 books on atheism. The first two broke me free. The rest were supporting commentary against belief in the Christian God. Has anyone here read a book proving belief in God? I mean showing a God does exist? Even Joe Jr. admitted atheism is correct with the standard escape hatch of faith. And "faith is pretending to know something you don't know." Said one author. HWA,s little booklet "Does God Exist "was not based on being educated on the subject. I'll bet that true believers still refer to it.
(1:38 PM)
One of the anons defends his right to be delusional with make-believe. If one speaks to God he is praying. If one has a god speaking to him he is delusional.
(5:05 PM)
BB admits you cannot prove a negative anyway. If that means the inability to prove God does not exist I'll take that statement. I've been asked for years to prove there is no God. First off tell me what you, BB, or anyone will accept as proof God does not exist? Do that then I'll go and get the proof. Yeah, it ain't easy. So, proof of God not existing is unlikely yet believers still ask for that to be produced after I ask them to prove he does.
Just how would anyone prove that a non-existent thing does not indeed, exist?
Jim Baldwin
The gods may have the last laugh, because the problem with evolution is, it doesn't work
God may do things in forward & backward time: That is starting with final perfect product (Adam & Eve) and allowing deEvolution (the only kind of evolution that works)(decaying entropy) over 3 billion earth years, ending in an earthly inferno of fire (so the ending, we perceive in our restricted forward time as the “beginning”) . Thus when the bible starts out with “In the beginning”, it is really the ending when the earth will be consumed by fire (II Peter 3:10)
As 10:37 expressed.
Mankind went through several bottlenecks, genewise and geographically.
The book of Genesis looks like an excellent "oral" tradition describing the bottleneck transition from hunter gatherer to agricultural societies and the plagues that go along with such transition. And mankind being in need to stem those plagues by a God that is exactly defined by those plagues that accompany such transition from "the free roaming hunter gatherer paradise, to the evils of working in sweat for a potatoe to be harvested on the set time, date and moment.
I've put some more "evidence" supporting this theory on the newer "adam and eve" thread.
nck
Post a Comment