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
I thought this was a good addendum to the previous post on "Here a little, there a little." I wonder if a Bob Thiel, who uses the mistaken COG view of the concept when he chides everyone on how to learn truth. Several here on the blog also hold tight to the misinterpretation as they take the verses out of their obvious and negative context.
Here is Bob Thiel's original rant on the proper way to study the Bible.
"Dennis Diehl, and many others, have ignored and/or despised the following instructions as to how to understand doctrine: 9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:9-10,)"
however.... BT went on to keep me and the worst of you in his thoughts and prayers.
"Using the Bible to interpret itself is a proper Christian ‘hermeneutic’ and is endorsed by scripture (Isaiah 28:9-10; Acts 17:10-13, 2 Timothy 2:15, 3:16-17). Dennis Diehl and other anti-Church of God critics remain in my prayers.
I wonder if Bob will read this posting and realized he has misunderstood Isaiah 28:8-9. Now that would be a miracle. I believe 'ben Johanan" (Sp) who posts here on "Evilution" could also benefit from getting the context straight. I'd be impressed if he said, "I was mistaken on this. Thank you. I love you all." lol
I've never met a COG member who has an understanding of Christ much less the Bible. I have never met many atheists that are coherent with reason and logic. Usually, they are both inflicted with confirmation bias.
The argument provided with this video is certainly logically incoherent. It preassumes some objective moral standard while attempting to tear down such a moral standard. It does not treat the subject matter with intellectual integrity.
How trite and pathetic. Shallow even.
I'm sure it is convencing to those looking for that confirmation.
You seem to have a fetish with an abstract standard for an objective moral standard.
I believe in at least the monotheistic faiths Islam and Judaism one needs to accept or submit to one single God, then the standard shifts to what good one actively pursues with the knowledge acquired.
The second standard I have seen in all religions. Only the definitions change of what constitutes "good".
Your excerpts with criticism regarding cog read a bit like the Jesuit contemporary eyewitness accounts of the Aztec blood rituals. "A people worthy of immediate destruction." Whilst to me I see a ritual involving blood executed to restore some order in the universe. It doesn't matter if you are Jacob's son, the son of an ancient Aztec or whoevers son. Only the definitions change but the outcome is rather painful.
So you say cog people have no understanding of christ. Of course they have and the statement taken literally is extremely biased to whatever definitions you carry. We would of course agree on the fact that your standards or definitions of Jesus might differ, but that is another story.
Many sermons were about Jesus and Christ from the 1930's onward despite what you hear on this blog.
The same goes for those people on here who are to this day harrowed by nasty thoughts about the Germans. I do not doubt them for a second. My only point is that most people in the German churches were or are to this day not haunted in the same manner as expressed on this blog.
It is a matter of perspective. Although I know how much you like "the gold standard." As one of the most hated ministers on this blog said nearly every speech. "Get the big picture."
Taking things out of context is not unique to the ACOG. As what you have posted last month, the author of Matthew did that by taking OT verses out of context. Aside from this, twisting and misquotations are also found even in other NT books.
Comparing Heb 8:9 with Jer 31:32, one wonders where the author of Hebrews got the idea that God disregarded Israel. Jer 31:35-37 describes the impossible conditions that would make God cast off Israel.
According to Heb 9:22, under the law without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. This is contrary to what the OT teaches. Lev 5:11-13 allows flour to be used for trespass offering. The sin offering is only for unintentional sin (Lev 4, Num 15:27-29). There is no sacrifice for intentional or presumptuous sin (Num 15:30-31). Manasseh was restored after repentance (2 Chr 33).
ABN You'd enjoy Anti Semitism the New Testament by Freudman. THe way the NT writers, authentic or those who forged, mined the OT to explain Jesus and doctrine compared to what the OT actually said is quite fascinating.
The perspective of this short video shows the contradictory attitudes scripture holds in the same way the sign I saw on a barn in Kentucky does. "Love Jesus or Burn Forever in Hell"
There is a disconnect somewhere with those two concepts. Like "Suzy, I love you...give daddy a hug or I'll kill you."
Wyatt Ciesielka is the main troll here. He reports back to Rod McNair. Rod, Gerald and the others at hq would like to shut this blog down but so far are helpless.
Ok nck. For someone who claims that one can not know truth, you seem to think you know the truth. But then, I thought it was a matter of perspective? It seems like you are bathing in some sort of post-modern hogwash. I'm sure you can see how self-refuting this is. It is a very basic law of logic that you seem to disregard. This law is the law of non-contradiction. It can be stated something like this: A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time.
There are certain things that are a matter of opinion such as taste. It's an opinion on whether or not you like chocolate ice cream. It is not a matter of opinion whether 2+2=4. Truth doesn't care about your perspective or your taste.
Jesus of Nazareth and the Bible make some specific truth claims. Those claims are either true or false -- and not a matter of perspective. If the COG makes a claim about Jesus of Nazareth and/or the Bible it is either true or false. We can determine if these claims are true or false by examining what Jesus' claims were and what the Bible claims using rationality and logic. With these kinds of tests, it can be determined that the COG didn't understand Jesus of Nazareth or the Bible. It is not a matter of perspective.
If you want to argue some specifics, I will be more than happy to take you up on it.
As far as my "fetish" for objective morality. Well, if you (or the video, in this case) want to make a moral claim, you better be prepared to justify it. This video is making an appeal to evil (among other things) so it's worth pointing it out.
Your other statements made no sense to me. So I cannot comment on them.
"The perspective of this short video shows the contradictory attitudes scripture holds in the same way the sign I saw on a barn in Kentucky does. 'Love Jesus or Burn Forever in Hell'".
Let me see if I can help you understand that claim on the barn in Kentucky.
"Love Jesus": Jesus made the claim that he is the truth and the life and you won't be able to make it to heaven without understanding his claim. To have this life (eternally), you should accept that Jesus is asking you to be good by the very standard of his nature which is maximally good. You can't be good without love. To be good is to conform to the nature of Jesus. Of course, you can't be good or love perfectly, but if you love Jesus he will pay your legal fine for failing. St. Paul did a better job of explaining the concept. See Romans.
"or": If you cannot try to be good and love as instructed by Jesus then you must not love Jesus.
"Burn in hell": It seems that not only is Jesus good, but he is just too. He wouldn't force someone who doesn't love him to be with him for eternity. He wouldn't let someone have eternal life with him without justice (not loving is the opposite of Jesus) either. That wouldn't be good or just at all, now would it? So for eternity, you will be seperate from Jesus in outer darkness or hell if you prefer.
That's a simplistic explination. I'm sure you are making your own choices in finding the truth and the life. It's on you.
Donnie: Don't you realize by now that NCK knows everything about everything? There is no one here more worldly and in tune with history, religion, finance, science, racial issues, etc, that our Dear NCK. No one understands Herbert Armstrong or the Church of God better than NCK. Get on the NCK train Donnie or you will be left behind.
This video nicely brings out how the NTs 'love one another' and similar is misrepresented by todays Tele evangelists. It is not 'passing the wealth around' on a emotional level, as claimed by these preachers.
The greatest expression of Gods agape love is wanting people to qualify for eternal life. Hence the 'harsh' approach in the OT. When people morally decline, sadly only shock therapy has any chance of getting through to these people. I know this from personal experience in my dealings with psychopaths and near psychopaths. God is only playing doctor. It's the patients that are to blame, not some 'cruel' God.
This video isn't about context at all. It's about how Protestant mushy love, love, love Christianity clashes with reality and the old testament. It's really about the bible twisting of the new testament.
Maybe, 8:01. But, Armstrongism is like walking into your family bathroom after some thoughtful person has sprayed some Glade, and saying “Now, that ain’t right!” and then dropping one of those little glass stink bombs you can get at the county fair on your tile floor, stepping on it, and thinking “Ah! That’s much better!”
8:01 I like that statement. It is not unlike Rene Descartes take on reality, that 2 + 2 equals 4 may not exist out of the mind and that is good to question the correspondence of the standard of truth to reality.
My friend Donnie seems somewhat of an absolute abstract thinker. Intelligent he is for certain.
I made a simple observation that made no sense to him.
Some here have had years of therapy for (instilled) fear of the Germans attacking California. My observation of the cog churches in Germany (when I visited) is that the Germans couldn't even be bothered by the thought, although they might have perceived is a possibility. It wasn't a major tenet over there, rather typical German health food was.
My point. This was the same church, same time, same visiting Gerald Waterhouse. It seems many things were a matter of perspective. Likewise I have asked for Nigerian, Tanzanian, Kenyan members of COG visiting this blog about their experiences with racism in the church that seemed so prevelent in the USA. A matter of perspective for outsiders I guess. Although of course I acknowledge the experience of a black person in the deep south.
Anonymous Anonymous said... Donnie: Don't you realize by now that NCK knows everything about everything? There is no one here more worldly and in tune with history, religion, finance, science, racial issues, etc, that our Dear NCK. No one understands Herbert Armstrong or the Church of God better than NCK. Get on the NCK train Donnie or you will be left behind."
Now in a thousand years archeologists reading retrieving the data from this blog will argue that I was an important philosopher and anonymous anonymous one of my deerest folowers sending me tithes. As a matter of fact I think this reading anonymous statement.
People with more experience or other scientist will by the CONTEXT or other referencing probably come to a different conclusion and state that anonymous was actually being sarcastic or funny. However by the text itself ONE CANNOT TELL. It is impossible. So there goes your 2 + 2 = 4. 2+ 2= 5 in this case.
I will not go into a discussion on logic in combination with Jesus. I will respect your faith and not go into feeding hundreds of people with 2 fish or walking on water. Interpret it as you will. I will respect your interpretation of events, literary or literally.
To say that Jesus talked in absolutes. 2 + 2 = 4, and cog people don t know jesus, evoked some images in my mind. Having the Cathars burned TOGETHER with the catholics at Beziers, while the knights rationalized. "God will recognize his own." The inquisition records that are extremely to the point, logical and true to the beholder and nothing like protestant propaganda would make of them. The result of this logic was thousands of people burned at the stake. (I am not going into the numbers.)
It is the logic I am adressing. Not you personally who may or may not have a dog or a fish, is caring for them and loves to save straying people from eternal damnation. In short a "good" guy by your "absolute" moral standard.
Again. Of course COG people heard thousands of sermons on Jesus. Had a book presented to them by Garner Ted Hamstrung about the "real jesus", a rugged outdoorsman, big hands from all the carpenting, scaring the hell out of his mother by at 6 years old not in control of his powers help his 10 brothers and sisters mend their wounds from playing etc.
COG people might have harbored different ideas about Jesus or what his purpose of being was, or perhaps even his very nature. My point is. They did have a perspective on him, even if you do not agree with that view, (since your view of Jesus seems to adhere to the absolutes as stated in the texts on his last three years on earth. (While the other 30 years are an enigma. Except for the cog people who even had an opinion on those 30 years.
The problem with Armstrongism as a theology is that rather than understanding the Old Testament/Covenant as documenting the need for a New Testament/Covenant, Armstrongism filters the New Testament through the Old, pretty much nullifying just about everything introduced or written about in the New. New is supposed to supercede Old as a matter of law.
I was just being lectured by the Mirum people. By extrapolating what those professionals told me, your abstract notion of logic or morality might not work for 5 billion people on earth.
Below they gave me an example of a hugely succesful commercial in South East Asia that will for certain not work in the Western World for a telecommunication company.
If you are interested in my line of thinking the commercial will show that the morality in the commercial that speaks to the heart of billions of Asians does not lie in the absolute or abstract truth or absolute morality of the story. It lies in the 2 + 2 = (or should be 5) method. Which is indeed a matter of (cultural) perception.
I am just exchanging an opinion from my perspective so there is no need to fiercely debate.
What I am interested in is IF your first impression as a westerner and perhaps preconceived ideas on morality might steer you in the thought that the commercial in the link, could be interpreted as making an appeal to "stealing" which is worth to point out? If so. Then I am not saying you are wrong on absolute dogma on the nature of stealing and coveting what is your neighbors', but you might stumble upon problems convincing/converting anyone raised in an Asian environment.
You said: "If you are interested in my line of thinking the commercial will show that the morality in the commercial that speaks to the heart of billions of Asians does not lie in the absolute or abstract truth or absolute morality of the story. It lies in the 2 + 2 = (or should be 5) method. Which is indeed a matter of (cultural) perception."
2 questions.
1. Is the above statement true? 2. You are crossing the street. Can you and a bus occupy the same space at the same time?
You said, "What I am interested in is IF your first impression as a westerner and perhaps preconceived ideas on morality might steer you in the thought that the commercial in the link, could be interpreted as making an appeal to "stealing" which is worth to point out? If so. Then I am not saying you are wrong on absolute dogma on the nature of stealing and coveting what is your neighbors', but you might stumble upon problems convincing/converting anyone raised in an Asian environment."
It seems to me you don't understand the difference between "objective" and "absolute". The most reasonable position is that there are certain objective morals and duties. Let me give you a brief example that may help clarify the conundrum.
Let say and cold-blooded killer came to your house looking for your sister. You know that your sister is asleep in the basement, but you tell the cold-blooded killer that your sister went to Mexico.
Now if lying was an absolute moral you would have commited a sin. If morality is objective you would have just prevented a murder without sinning. I think you get it.
1) Yes! A lotvif people find multiple meaning in the abraham story. I see a crazy man killing his son. Only stopped by the being who gave the ridiculous and murderous order in the first place.
2) Yes. If the bus has a full stop and two doors. There is this one moment we are occupying the same space. I wont bother you with quantum mechanics. In which all things happen at the same time in multiple universes. Better not to ridicule quantum mechanics lest I will start adressing walking on water and whatsnot.
Wyatt Ciesielka is the main troll here. He reports back to Rod McNair. Rod, Gerald and the others at hq would like to shut this blog down but so far are helpless.
LCG cannot shut this blog down. All it can do is fire employees who are caught posting here. The problem is that there are already enough ex-employees who are beyond their reach, who have seen old abuses and still hear about new ones from their friends in Charlotte, that the leaks will continue even if couple of employee leakers get fired.
Wyatt and Rod can run their spies and create a climate of fear at LCG HQ, but they cannot stop former employees from getting the word out when HQ inmates reach out to their friends. Mr. Evil and Mr. Stupid cannot touch ex-employees BB, CB, DB, JB, KB, MB, SB, TB, LC, KF, VF, LK, JM, RM, BO, CO, LP, RP, BR, HR, JR, KR, GS, LS, PS, RS, SS. That's 27 sets of initials, and some of those initials are shared by two ex-employees. Add wives and LU students, and the number of potential leaks from the LCG grapevine is way beyond what Rod and Wyatt can control, even if they succeed in instilling fear into current employees.
As I don't have much time to reflect in-depth on some of the points you made in a previous post, I just make some quick remarks.
I don't really know much about what COG taught about Germans and I don't know much about the COG German churches. But that is neither here or there. I think you have missed my entire argument. (I must be a terrible writer.) We use logic and reason to determine the probable truth. If you want to discuss the "truth" claims the COG made about Germans and what the Germans thought about them, fine. It, however, does not follow logically that because the Germans thought differently that logic and reasoning is not the best way to arrive at truth. It only shows that two different groups had different views.
Your comment: "People with more experience or other scientist will by the CONTEXT or other referencing probably come to a different conclusion and state that anonymous was actually being sarcastic or funny. However by the text itself ONE CANNOT TELL. It is impossible. So there goes your 2 + 2 = 4. 2+ 2= 5 in this case."
How absurd. It does not follow that just because there is not enough data in a few sentences to determine what the full intent of the sentences was that logic breaks down. It just means that there is not enough data. Most reasonable people understand sarcasm and humor, and satire. It does not follow that because these things are possible logic is not.
Your comment: "I will not go into a discussion on logic in combination with Jesus. I will respect your faith and not go into feeding hundreds of people with 2 fish or walking on water. Interpret it as you will. I will respect your interpretation of events, literary or literally."
More absurdity. Logic and reasoning does not preassume the supernatural can't happen. You mustn't conflate logic with naturalism. If you would like to discuss the coherence of miracles in the Bible I'd be happy too. Be prepared to discuss the greatest miracle of all -- the universe coming into being from nothing. If that miracle is possible, then water to wine and fishes is easy.
Your comment: "Having the Cathars burned TOGETHER with the catholics at Beziers..."
Even more absurdity. Just because some misguided people failed to understand Jesus of Nazareth it doesn't follow logically that there is no such thing as logic. It doesn't even follow that the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is not logical. It only follows that evil deeds were committed by people who claimed to be Christians.
Your comment: "In short a "good" guy by your "absolute" moral standard."
First, my claim is that there is objective moral values and duties. If you will provide an argument that suggests that the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth led to the death of Cathars in France, I will be happy to look at it. I think you will find that you can make no such argument. Your logic is faulty.
Your comment: "They did have a perspective on him, even if you do not agree with that view..."
So what? Anyone can have a view of Jesus. Just because they have a view doesn't make it true. There was only one Jesus and he made specific truth claims about himself. If you don't understand those claims or twist them to be something that he didn't claim you have the wrong Jesus. Pretty simple. You can buy a counterfeit watch at the flea market. It may look to you like the real thing, but it probably won't keep perfect time and you will probably miss the train.
Let say and cold-blooded killer came to your house looking for your sister. You know that your sister is asleep in the basement, but you tell the cold-blooded killer that your sister went to Mexico. Now if lying was an absolute moral you would have commited a sin. If morality is objective you would have just prevented a murder without sinning.
Let's say that you are an LCG minister and you meet someone who wants to see LCG fail. You can tell the truth and spread scandalous information that would cause people to leave LCG, or you can tell a story that will leave LCG unharmed.
That's the same logic as in your example, and it is common logic among ACOG ministers. What you should have done when the cold-blooded killer came to your house is to say, "No, I won't tell you where she is." You do not need to lie, you just need to choose not to cooperate with murder. Remember, lying and murder are both covered in the Ten Commandments. As soon as you lie, you are committing an actual sin because you hope it might prevent a potential sin. Christians are supposed to trust in God, and to have the courage not to sin, even if it means putting your life in God's hands instead of telling a lie.
You said, "1) Yes! A lotvif people find multiple meaning in the abraham story. I see a crazy man killing his son. Only stopped by the being who gave the ridiculous and murderous order in the first place."
Sure there can be a lot meanings (or truths) in the story of Abraham. We can agree on that. Not all interpretations are equally valid. Simple logic and reasoning can help us sort that out.
You said, "2) Yes. If the bus has a full stop and two doors. There is this one moment we are occupying the same space. I wont bother you with quantum mechanics. In which all things happen at the same time in multiple universes. Better not to ridicule quantum mechanics lest I will start adressing walking on water and whatsnot."
As I said , "If you are crossing the road" Don't move the goal post on me. As you cross the road and you begin to occupy the same space as the bus. You will be dead or at the very least injured. This is a good physical analogy of the law of noncontradiction.
Further, with your remark of quantum mechanics, I'm pretty sure you don't want to argue science with a scientist, now do you? While quantum mechanics isn't my field, I am familiar with some of the literature. It is difficult for me to believe that someone with a poor understanding of the basic laws of logic and begs the question often would be versed in quantum mechanics.
I'll be happy to discuss walking on water and whatnot from the Bible if that is what you mean.
" What you should have done when the cold-blooded killer came to your house is to say, "No, I won't tell you where she is." You do not need to lie, you just need to choose not to cooperate with murder."
Yeah, and what if the killer says tell me, or I'll kill you.
You are still scoring points on my balance sheet. I'm not engaging, because I m engaged on other slippery slopes, not out of disrespect.
2:52 raises an interesting point which us quite easy to answer. As a matter of fact he answered himself.
I m will make sure next time we engage to raise my personal bar to meet your standard and level of reasoning.
This is like the stock market, raising levels step by step, sucking the retailers in by letting them win some and then take it all away in one fell swoop. As you say it is a matter of data. Very much agreed.
"What you should have done when the cold-blooded killer came to your house is to say, 'No, I won't tell you where she is.'"
Mostly I would agree with you, except for this statement. I believe that the Bible teaches objective morality and not absolute. I believe that was one of Jesus' primary purposes. I'm ok with you having a slightly different take on it. I don't think take morality as an absolute can withstand rigorous testing. We have to consider all the attributes of God. One of those attributes is Just. He will deliver perfect justice.
The 10 Commandments is a tutor, if you will recall and should be treated as such.
You said: "I'm not engaging because I m engaged on other slippery slopes, not out of disrespect."
It seems to me that you are engaging because you have an agenda. That's ok. I have an agenda too. Your agenda is to devalue the notion of God and all that is good that flow from him. Possibly, you have the minor agenda of discrediting HWA and his splinters.
I can join you on that second one. I, however, cannot abide your devaluation of God and all the good that flows from him -- just as I cannot abide HWA. I will meet you on the battlefield of coherence, logic, history, science etc.
Most people forget the specifics of the ninth commandment. It is designed to protect innocent people against perjury. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” The over-riding principle is one of protecting innoncents. It is not intended to encompass all types of lying, or the reasons behind them.
If some idiots came into my neighborhood talking about ZOG, and asking if any of my neighbors were Jewish or “mud people”, I’d say and do what I needed to do to protect my neighbors! I believe God would agree that a higher principle was in play.
(slippery slopes is to be taken literally, as in "Aspen glow.")
A minor alteration.
Although my agenda might be perceived to devaluate God it is actually the flip side of the coin. I've been raising the human(istic) part of the equasion.
Likewise my commemts on the many many good things we did as a church body have been misrepresented on this blog as me being HWA s whitewasher. A matter of perspective.
To be specific. My attempts to empower man, as in renaissance, have been either misrepresented as if I am on the side of power or evaluated as to devaluate so called sources of the souring human spirit.
As a matter of fact this was the entire premiss of wcg. To have the aspiring spirit of man soar as sculpted in all material posessions of the church. Unfortunately it did not work on many members that way. As Michelangelo claimed about his sculptures, that he was just releasing them from the stone. It seems that proces is even harder to accomplish with real people.
They spoke of the soaring of the human spirit, nck, starting in about 1969. However, they did everything possible to the church members to thwart it. If we were the bride of Christ, somehow our status got perverted so that we were kept pregnant and barefoot!
I guess your statement is true, like flies that burn in the fire that attracted them. Only from a distance star light is to be apreciated as "romantic".
What we have here is the Bible proving how ridiculous it is.. Is it not obvious?
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a good addendum to the previous post on "Here a little, there a little."
ReplyDeleteI wonder if a Bob Thiel, who uses the mistaken COG view of the concept when he chides everyone on how to learn truth. Several here on the blog also hold tight to the misinterpretation as they take the verses out of their obvious and negative context.
Here is Bob Thiel's original rant on the proper way to study the Bible.
ReplyDelete"Dennis Diehl, and many others, have ignored and/or despised the following instructions as to how to understand doctrine:
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:9-10,)"
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/wcg-news/apostate-former-wcg-minister-challenges-cogwriters-biblical-interpretation-methods-which-should-you-believe/
however.... BT went on to keep me and the worst of you in his thoughts and prayers.
ReplyDelete"Using the Bible to interpret itself is a proper Christian ‘hermeneutic’ and is endorsed by scripture (Isaiah 28:9-10; Acts 17:10-13, 2 Timothy 2:15, 3:16-17).
Dennis Diehl and other anti-Church of God critics remain in my prayers.
I wonder if Bob will read this posting and realized he has misunderstood Isaiah 28:8-9. Now that would be a miracle. I believe 'ben Johanan" (Sp) who posts here on "Evilution" could also benefit from getting the context straight. I'd be impressed if he said, "I was mistaken on this. Thank you. I love you all." lol
I've never met a COG member who has an understanding of Christ much less the Bible. I have never met many atheists that are coherent with reason and logic. Usually, they are both inflicted with confirmation bias.
ReplyDeleteThe argument provided with this video is certainly logically incoherent. It preassumes some objective moral standard while attempting to tear down such a moral standard. It does not treat the subject matter with intellectual integrity.
How trite and pathetic. Shallow even.
I'm sure it is convencing to those looking for that confirmation.
Over thousands of years, there have been many ways developed to interpret the Bible. The method Mrs. Runcorn taught Loma was just one of them.
ReplyDeleteWhat is most important is what results from the method. Does it produce good, or evil?
BB
Donnie,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have a fetish with an abstract standard for an objective moral standard.
I believe in at least the monotheistic faiths Islam and Judaism one needs to accept or submit to one single God, then the standard shifts to what good one actively pursues with the knowledge acquired.
The second standard I have seen in all religions. Only the definitions change of what constitutes "good".
Your excerpts with criticism regarding cog read a bit like the Jesuit contemporary eyewitness accounts of the Aztec blood rituals. "A people worthy of immediate destruction." Whilst to me I see a ritual involving blood executed to restore some order in the universe. It doesn't matter if you are Jacob's son, the son of an ancient Aztec or whoevers son. Only the definitions change but the outcome is rather painful.
So you say cog people have no understanding of christ. Of course they have and the statement taken literally is extremely biased to whatever definitions you carry. We would of course agree on the fact that your standards or definitions of Jesus might differ, but that is another story.
Many sermons were about Jesus and Christ from the 1930's onward despite what you hear on this blog.
The same goes for those people on here who are to this day harrowed by nasty thoughts about the Germans. I do not doubt them for a second. My only point is that most people in the German churches were or are to this day not haunted in the same manner as expressed on this blog.
It is a matter of perspective. Although I know how much you like "the gold standard."
As one of the most hated ministers on this blog said nearly every speech. "Get the big picture."
nck
Taking things out of context is not unique to the ACOG. As what you have posted last month, the author of Matthew did that by taking OT verses out of context. Aside from this, twisting and misquotations are also found even in other NT books.
ReplyDeleteComparing Heb 8:9 with Jer 31:32, one wonders where the author of Hebrews got the idea that God disregarded Israel. Jer 31:35-37 describes the impossible conditions that would make God cast off Israel.
According to Heb 9:22, under the law without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. This is contrary to what the OT teaches. Lev 5:11-13 allows flour to be used for trespass offering. The sin offering is only for unintentional sin (Lev 4, Num 15:27-29). There is no sacrifice for intentional or presumptuous sin (Num 15:30-31). Manasseh was restored after repentance (2 Chr 33).
The OT and NT cannot be both true...
ABN You'd enjoy Anti Semitism the New Testament by Freudman. THe way the NT writers, authentic or those who forged, mined the OT to explain Jesus and doctrine compared to what the OT actually said is quite fascinating.
ReplyDeleteThe perspective of this short video shows the contradictory attitudes scripture holds in the same way the sign I saw on a barn in Kentucky does. "Love Jesus or Burn Forever in Hell"
ReplyDeleteThere is a disconnect somewhere with those two concepts. Like "Suzy, I love you...give daddy a hug or I'll kill you."
Wyatt Ciesielka is the main troll here. He reports back to Rod McNair. Rod, Gerald and the others at hq would like to shut this blog down but so far are helpless.
ReplyDeleteTo nck,
ReplyDeleteOk nck. For someone who claims that one can not know truth, you seem to think you know the truth. But then, I thought it was a matter of perspective? It seems like you are bathing in some sort of post-modern hogwash. I'm sure you can see how self-refuting this is. It is a very basic law of logic that you seem to disregard. This law is the law of non-contradiction. It can be stated something like this: A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time.
There are certain things that are a matter of opinion such as taste. It's an opinion on whether or not you like chocolate ice cream. It is not a matter of opinion whether 2+2=4. Truth doesn't care about your perspective or your taste.
Jesus of Nazareth and the Bible make some specific truth claims. Those claims are either true or false -- and not a matter of perspective. If the COG makes a claim about Jesus of Nazareth and/or the Bible it is either true or false. We can determine if these claims are true or false by examining what Jesus' claims were and what the Bible claims using rationality and logic. With these kinds of tests, it can be determined that the COG didn't understand Jesus of Nazareth or the Bible. It is not a matter of perspective.
If you want to argue some specifics, I will be more than happy to take you up on it.
As far as my "fetish" for objective morality. Well, if you (or the video, in this case) want to make a moral claim, you better be prepared to justify it. This video is making an appeal to evil (among other things) so it's worth pointing it out.
Your other statements made no sense to me. So I cannot comment on them.
To DennisCDiehl:
ReplyDeleteWhat a strange statement:
"The perspective of this short video shows the contradictory attitudes scripture holds in the same way the sign I saw on a barn in Kentucky does. 'Love Jesus or Burn Forever in Hell'".
Let me see if I can help you understand that claim on the barn in Kentucky.
"Love Jesus": Jesus made the claim that he is the truth and the life and you won't be able to make it to heaven without understanding his claim. To have this life (eternally), you should accept that Jesus is asking you to be good by the very standard of his nature which is maximally good. You can't be good without love. To be good is to conform to the nature of Jesus. Of course, you can't be good or love perfectly, but if you love Jesus he will pay your legal fine for failing. St. Paul did a better job of explaining the concept. See Romans.
"or": If you cannot try to be good and love as instructed by Jesus then you must not love Jesus.
"Burn in hell": It seems that not only is Jesus good, but he is just too. He wouldn't force someone who doesn't love him to be with him for eternity. He wouldn't let someone have eternal life with him without justice (not loving is the opposite of Jesus) either. That wouldn't be good or just at all, now would it? So for eternity, you will be seperate from Jesus in outer darkness or hell if you prefer.
That's a simplistic explination. I'm sure you are making your own choices in finding the truth and the life. It's on you.
Donnie: Don't you realize by now that NCK knows everything about everything? There is no one here more worldly and in tune with history, religion, finance, science, racial issues, etc, that our Dear NCK. No one understands Herbert Armstrong or the Church of God better than NCK. Get on the NCK train Donnie or you will be left behind.
ReplyDeleteThis video nicely brings out how the NTs 'love one another' and similar is misrepresented by todays Tele evangelists. It is not 'passing the wealth around' on a emotional level, as claimed by these preachers.
ReplyDeleteThe greatest expression of Gods agape love is wanting people to qualify for eternal life. Hence the 'harsh' approach in the OT. When people morally decline, sadly only shock therapy has any chance of getting through to these people. I know this from personal experience in my dealings with psychopaths and near psychopaths.
God is only playing doctor. It's the patients that are to blame, not some 'cruel' God.
This video isn't about context at all. It's about how Protestant mushy love, love, love Christianity clashes with reality and the old testament.
ReplyDeleteIt's really about the bible twisting of the new testament.
Maybe, 8:01. But, Armstrongism is like walking into your family bathroom after some thoughtful person has sprayed some Glade, and saying “Now, that ain’t right!” and then dropping one of those little glass stink bombs you can get at the county fair on your tile floor, stepping on it, and thinking “Ah! That’s much better!”
DeleteBB
8:01
ReplyDeleteI like that statement. It is not unlike Rene Descartes take on reality, that 2 + 2 equals 4 may not exist out of the mind and that is good to question the correspondence of the standard of truth to reality.
My friend Donnie seems somewhat of an absolute abstract thinker. Intelligent he is for certain.
I made a simple observation that made no sense to him.
Some here have had years of therapy for (instilled) fear of the Germans attacking California. My observation of the cog churches in Germany (when I visited) is that the Germans couldn't even be bothered by the thought, although they might have perceived is a possibility. It wasn't a major tenet over there, rather typical German health food was.
My point. This was the same church, same time, same visiting Gerald Waterhouse. It seems many things were a matter of perspective. Likewise I have asked for Nigerian, Tanzanian, Kenyan members of COG visiting this blog about their experiences with racism in the church that seemed so prevelent in the USA. A matter of perspective for outsiders I guess. Although of course I acknowledge the experience of a black person in the deep south.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Donnie: Don't you realize by now that NCK knows everything about everything? There is no one here more worldly and in tune with history, religion, finance, science, racial issues, etc, that our Dear NCK. No one understands Herbert Armstrong or the Church of God better than NCK. Get on the NCK train Donnie or you will be left behind."
Now in a thousand years archeologists reading retrieving the data from this blog will argue that I was an important philosopher and anonymous anonymous one of my deerest folowers sending me tithes. As a matter of fact I think this reading anonymous statement.
People with more experience or other scientist will by the CONTEXT or other referencing probably come to a different conclusion and state that anonymous was actually being sarcastic or funny. However by the text itself ONE CANNOT TELL. It is impossible. So there goes your 2 + 2 = 4. 2+ 2= 5 in this case.
I will not go into a discussion on logic in combination with Jesus. I will respect your faith and not go into feeding hundreds of people with 2 fish or walking on water. Interpret it as you will. I will respect your interpretation of events, literary or literally.
To say that Jesus talked in absolutes. 2 + 2 = 4, and cog people don t know jesus, evoked some images in my mind. Having the Cathars burned TOGETHER with the catholics at Beziers, while the knights rationalized. "God will recognize his own."
The inquisition records that are extremely to the point, logical and true to the beholder and nothing like protestant propaganda would make of them. The result of this logic was thousands of people burned at the stake. (I am not going into the numbers.)
It is the logic I am adressing. Not you personally who may or may not have a dog or a fish, is caring for them and loves to save straying people from eternal damnation. In short a "good" guy by your "absolute" moral standard.
Again. Of course COG people heard thousands of sermons on Jesus. Had a book presented to them by Garner Ted Hamstrung about the "real jesus", a rugged outdoorsman, big hands from all the carpenting, scaring the hell out of his mother by at 6 years old not in control of his powers help his 10 brothers and sisters mend their wounds from playing etc.
COG people might have harbored different ideas about Jesus or what his purpose of being was, or perhaps even his very nature. My point is. They did have a perspective on him, even if you do not agree with that view, (since your view of Jesus seems to adhere to the absolutes as stated in the texts on his last three years on earth. (While the other 30 years are an enigma. Except for the cog people who even had an opinion on those 30 years.
nck
The problem with Armstrongism as a theology is that rather than understanding the Old Testament/Covenant as documenting the need for a New Testament/Covenant, Armstrongism filters the New Testament through the Old, pretty much nullifying just about everything introduced or written about in the New. New is supposed to supercede Old as a matter of law.
ReplyDeleteBB
Donnie,
ReplyDeleteI was just being lectured by the Mirum people.
By extrapolating what those professionals told me, your abstract notion of logic or morality might not work for 5 billion people on earth.
Below they gave me an example of a hugely succesful commercial in South East Asia that will for certain not work in the Western World for a telecommunication company.
If you are interested in my line of thinking the commercial will show that the morality in the commercial that speaks to the heart of billions of Asians does not lie in the absolute or abstract truth or absolute morality of the story. It lies in the 2 + 2 = (or should be 5) method. Which is indeed a matter of (cultural) perception.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=203&v=N9TWrti5gAY
I am just exchanging an opinion from my perspective so there is no need to fiercely debate.
What I am interested in is IF your first impression as a westerner and perhaps preconceived ideas on morality might steer you in the thought that the commercial in the link, could be interpreted as making an appeal to "stealing" which is worth to point out? If so. Then I am not saying you are wrong on absolute dogma on the nature of stealing and coveting what is your neighbors', but you might stumble upon problems convincing/converting anyone raised in an Asian environment.
nck
Ok nck.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "If you are interested in my line of thinking the commercial will show that the morality in the commercial that speaks to the heart of billions of Asians does not lie in the absolute or abstract truth or absolute morality of the story. It lies in the 2 + 2 = (or should be 5) method. Which is indeed a matter of (cultural) perception."
2 questions.
1. Is the above statement true?
2. You are crossing the street. Can you and a bus occupy the same space at the same time?
nck:
ReplyDeleteYou said, "What I am interested in is IF your first impression as a westerner and perhaps preconceived ideas on morality might steer you in the thought that the commercial in the link, could be interpreted as making an appeal to "stealing" which is worth to point out? If so. Then I am not saying you are wrong on absolute dogma on the nature of stealing and coveting what is your neighbors', but you might stumble upon problems convincing/converting anyone raised in an Asian environment."
It seems to me you don't understand the difference between "objective" and "absolute". The most reasonable position is that there are certain objective morals and duties. Let me give you a brief example that may help clarify the conundrum.
Let say and cold-blooded killer came to your house looking for your sister. You know that your sister is asleep in the basement, but you tell the cold-blooded killer that your sister went to Mexico.
Now if lying was an absolute moral you would have commited a sin. If morality is objective you would have just prevented a murder without sinning. I think you get it.
1) Yes! A lotvif people find multiple meaning in the abraham story. I see a crazy man killing his son. Only stopped by the being who gave the ridiculous and murderous order in the first place.
ReplyDelete2) Yes. If the bus has a full stop and two doors. There is this one moment we are occupying the same space. I wont bother you with quantum mechanics. In which all things happen at the same time in multiple universes. Better not to ridicule quantum mechanics lest I will start adressing walking on water and whatsnot.
Nck
@ Anon 12:15 PM
ReplyDeleteWyatt Ciesielka is the main troll here. He reports back to Rod McNair. Rod, Gerald and the others at hq would like to shut this blog down but so far are helpless.
LCG cannot shut this blog down. All it can do is fire employees who are caught posting here. The problem is that there are already enough ex-employees who are beyond their reach, who have seen old abuses and still hear about new ones from their friends in Charlotte, that the leaks will continue even if couple of employee leakers get fired.
Wyatt and Rod can run their spies and create a climate of fear at LCG HQ, but they cannot stop former employees from getting the word out when HQ inmates reach out to their friends. Mr. Evil and Mr. Stupid cannot touch ex-employees BB, CB, DB, JB, KB, MB, SB, TB, LC, KF, VF, LK, JM, RM, BO, CO, LP, RP, BR, HR, JR, KR, GS, LS, PS, RS, SS. That's 27 sets of initials, and some of those initials are shared by two ex-employees. Add wives and LU students, and the number of potential leaks from the LCG grapevine is way beyond what Rod and Wyatt can control, even if they succeed in instilling fear into current employees.
nck:
ReplyDeleteAs I don't have much time to reflect in-depth on some of the points you made in a previous post, I just make some quick remarks.
I don't really know much about what COG taught about Germans and I don't know much about the COG German churches. But that is neither here or there. I think you have missed my entire argument. (I must be a terrible writer.) We use logic and reason to determine the probable truth. If you want to discuss the "truth" claims the COG made about Germans and what the Germans thought about them, fine. It, however, does not follow logically that because the Germans thought differently that logic and reasoning is not the best way to arrive at truth. It only shows that two different groups had different views.
Your comment: "People with more experience or other scientist will by the CONTEXT or other referencing probably come to a different conclusion and state that anonymous was actually being sarcastic or funny. However by the text itself ONE CANNOT TELL. It is impossible. So there goes your 2 + 2 = 4. 2+ 2= 5 in this case."
How absurd. It does not follow that just because there is not enough data in a few sentences to determine what the full intent of the sentences was that logic breaks down. It just means that there is not enough data. Most reasonable people understand sarcasm and humor, and satire. It does not follow that because these things are possible logic is not.
Your comment: "I will not go into a discussion on logic in combination with Jesus. I will respect your faith and not go into feeding hundreds of people with 2 fish or walking on water. Interpret it as you will. I will respect your interpretation of events, literary or literally."
More absurdity. Logic and reasoning does not preassume the supernatural can't happen. You mustn't conflate logic with naturalism. If you would like to discuss the coherence of miracles in the Bible I'd be happy too. Be prepared to discuss the greatest miracle of all -- the universe coming into being from nothing. If that miracle is possible, then water to wine and fishes is easy.
Your comment: "Having the Cathars burned TOGETHER with the catholics at Beziers..."
Even more absurdity. Just because some misguided people failed to understand Jesus of Nazareth it doesn't follow logically that there is no such thing as logic. It doesn't even follow that the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is not logical. It only follows that evil deeds were committed by people who claimed to be Christians.
Your comment: "In short a "good" guy by your "absolute" moral standard."
First, my claim is that there is objective moral values and duties. If you will provide an argument that suggests that the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth led to the death of Cathars in France, I will be happy to look at it. I think you will find that you can make no such argument. Your logic is faulty.
Your comment: "They did have a perspective on him, even if you do not agree with that view..."
So what? Anyone can have a view of Jesus. Just because they have a view doesn't make it true. There was only one Jesus and he made specific truth claims about himself. If you don't understand those claims or twist them to be something that he didn't claim you have the wrong Jesus. Pretty simple. You can buy a counterfeit watch at the flea market. It may look to you like the real thing, but it probably won't keep perfect time and you will probably miss the train.
You are missing the train.
@ Donnie:
ReplyDeleteLet say and cold-blooded killer came to your house looking for your sister. You know that your sister is asleep in the basement, but you tell the cold-blooded killer that your sister went to Mexico. Now if lying was an absolute moral you would have commited a sin. If morality is objective you would have just prevented a murder without sinning.
Let's say that you are an LCG minister and you meet someone who wants to see LCG fail. You can tell the truth and spread scandalous information that would cause people to leave LCG, or you can tell a story that will leave LCG unharmed.
That's the same logic as in your example, and it is common logic among ACOG ministers. What you should have done when the cold-blooded killer came to your house is to say, "No, I won't tell you where she is." You do not need to lie, you just need to choose not to cooperate with murder. Remember, lying and murder are both covered in the Ten Commandments. As soon as you lie, you are committing an actual sin because you hope it might prevent a potential sin. Christians are supposed to trust in God, and to have the courage not to sin, even if it means putting your life in God's hands instead of telling a lie.
nck:
ReplyDeleteYou said, "1) Yes! A lotvif people find multiple meaning in the abraham story. I see a crazy man killing his son. Only stopped by the being who gave the ridiculous and murderous order in the first place."
Sure there can be a lot meanings (or truths) in the story of Abraham. We can agree on that. Not all interpretations are equally valid. Simple logic and reasoning can help us sort that out.
You said, "2) Yes. If the bus has a full stop and two doors. There is this one moment we are occupying the same space. I wont bother you with quantum mechanics. In which all things happen at the same time in multiple universes. Better not to ridicule quantum mechanics lest I will start adressing walking on water and whatsnot."
As I said , "If you are crossing the road" Don't move the goal post on me. As you cross the road and you begin to occupy the same space as the bus. You will be dead or at the very least injured. This is a good physical analogy of the law of noncontradiction.
Further, with your remark of quantum mechanics, I'm pretty sure you don't want to argue science with a scientist, now do you? While quantum mechanics isn't my field, I am familiar with some of the literature. It is difficult for me to believe that someone with a poor understanding of the basic laws of logic and begs the question often would be versed in quantum mechanics.
I'll be happy to discuss walking on water and whatnot from the Bible if that is what you mean.
" What you should have done when the cold-blooded killer came to your house is to say, "No, I won't tell you where she is." You do not need to lie, you just need to choose not to cooperate with murder."
ReplyDeleteYeah, and what if the killer says tell me, or I'll kill you.
Donnie.
ReplyDeleteYou are still scoring points on my balance sheet. I'm not engaging, because I m engaged on other slippery slopes, not out of disrespect.
2:52 raises an interesting point which us quite easy to answer. As a matter of fact he answered himself.
I m will make sure next time we engage to raise my personal bar to meet your standard and level of reasoning.
This is like the stock market, raising levels step by step, sucking the retailers in by letting them win some and then take it all away in one fell swoop. As you say it is a matter of data. Very much agreed.
Nck
Ronco,
ReplyDeletewhat if the killer says tell me, or I'll kill you.
You get to decide whether you are a Christian who trusts God, or someone who would rather save his life but lose his eternity.
Anon @ 2:52:
ReplyDelete"What you should have done when the cold-blooded killer came to your house is to say, 'No, I won't tell you where she is.'"
Mostly I would agree with you, except for this statement. I believe that the Bible teaches objective morality and not absolute. I believe that was one of Jesus' primary purposes. I'm ok with you having a slightly different take on it. I don't think take morality as an absolute can withstand rigorous testing. We have to consider all the attributes of God. One of those attributes is Just. He will deliver perfect justice.
The 10 Commandments is a tutor, if you will recall and should be treated as such.
Anon @ 4:29:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "You get to decide whether you are a Christian who trusts God, or someone who would rather save his life but lose his eternity."
What a narrow view of Christ. Are you a COG splinter member?
To nck:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I'm not engaging because I m engaged on other slippery slopes, not out of disrespect."
It seems to me that you are engaging because you have an agenda. That's ok. I have an agenda too. Your agenda is to devalue the notion of God and all that is good that flow from him. Possibly, you have the minor agenda of discrediting HWA and his splinters.
I can join you on that second one. I, however, cannot abide your devaluation of God and all the good that flows from him -- just as I cannot abide HWA. I will meet you on the battlefield of coherence, logic, history, science etc.
Beware my sword is sharp. I sharpen it often.
"what if the killer says tell me, or I'll kill you.
ReplyDeleteYou get to decide whether you are a Christian who trusts God, or someone who would rather save his life but lose his eternity."
How about the midwives in Exodus 1:15-21? They lied through their teeth to Pharaoh and God blessed them.
Rahab's actions in Joshua 2, commended in Heb 11:31 and James 2:25.
Elisha's deception in 2 Kings 6:19...
Most people forget the specifics of the ninth commandment. It is designed to protect innocent people against perjury. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” The over-riding principle is one of protecting innoncents. It is not intended to encompass all types of lying, or the reasons behind them.
DeleteIf some idiots came into my neighborhood talking about ZOG, and asking if any of my neighbors were Jewish or “mud people”, I’d say and do what I needed to do to protect my neighbors! I believe God would agree that a higher principle was in play.
BB
Hello Donnie.
ReplyDelete(slippery slopes is to be taken literally, as in "Aspen glow.")
A minor alteration.
Although my agenda might be perceived to devaluate God it is actually the flip side of the coin. I've been raising the human(istic) part of the equasion.
Likewise my commemts on the many many good things we did as a church body have been misrepresented on this blog as me being HWA s whitewasher. A matter of perspective.
Nck
Donnie.
ReplyDeleteTo be specific. My attempts to empower man, as in renaissance, have been either misrepresented as if I am on the side of power or evaluated as to devaluate so called sources of the souring human spirit.
As a matter of fact this was the entire premiss of wcg. To have the aspiring spirit of man soar as sculpted in all material posessions of the church. Unfortunately it did not work on many members that way. As Michelangelo claimed about his sculptures, that he was just releasing them from the stone. It seems that proces is even harder to accomplish with real people.
Nck
They spoke of the soaring of the human spirit, nck, starting in about 1969. However, they did everything possible to the church members to thwart it. If we were the bride of Christ, somehow our status got perverted so that we were kept pregnant and barefoot!
DeleteBB
BB
ReplyDeleteI guess your statement is true, like flies that burn in the fire that attracted them. Only from a distance star light is to be apreciated as "romantic".
Nck