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
▼
Saturday, February 17, 2018
Dear Church of God Teens. Since it is too late for your parents....
Learn more of what actually is true in 28 minutes than your pastor's 1 hour and 20 minute sermon or 16 ill informed and mistaken programs about how everything came to be. Listen in hilarious delight to Dave Pack misinform you with his Koala Bear tales and back himself into a "But what about the Two Koalas on the Ark?" dilemma. C'mon...28 minutes to save you from making lifelong career choices should you decide to attend your local church college or totally skip your education waiting for Jesus to return and flee to some unscriptural disaster you will never recover from. No church leader in the history of the Churches of God , as Dave Pack, has so badly failed to tell you the truth about the origin of everything.
Yes, teenagers, think for yourself, and don’t allow a cult with a 40 year plus failure record to cause you the personal setbacks that so many of us have had to endure or fight! You guys have so many resources today that we simply did not have back around the time we were mailing in our applications to Embarrassing College.
Aron Ra may not appeal to you if you were raised in an ACOG. But, his is only one out of many voices. There are even resources out there who groom themselves and dress more in keeping with the standards with which you grew up. You just have to look for them. The most important action item you could possibly have in your life right now is that of proving all things by seeking out second and third opinions. Weigh conflicting opinions as part of your own personal sifting process. At least investigate all possibilities. I sincerely wish someone had presented this advice to me in an acceptable manner back when I had been conditioned to believe that “prove all things” meant reading the church literature and nodding my head in assent.
And, while your doing your research, please remember that you don't have to figure it all out right now. In fact, I hope that you will rapidly come to the conclusion that your search is going to be a lifelong process, and that NOBODY has figured it all out!
BB I would add the qualification that seeking out second and third opinions only makes sense if the people asked are cut from a differing cloth. I once asked several church members advice on a personal matter. They all gave the same answer, and it proved to be wrong. The reason being (as experience later proved) that they were partial to evil people. The majority can be wrong. Asking several people only works if they are of a good character, and even then, they can be wrong out of lack of understanding.
Yes both to 2:45, and to Dennis at 3:37. It would make no sense whatever if a teenager’s first, second and third opinions all came from Armstrongites. The objective is checks and balances, not “all speaking the same thing.”
I still see young Jehovah Witnesses standing on street corners pushing their wares, it doesn't matter the age, if someone likes being brainwashed what can you do?
Let me sound a note for theistic evolution. Even though it is clear that natural selection had a significant role in speciation, it does not easily explain everything back to the origin.
All life is derived from a single original cell. The cell had the genetic complexity to give rise to the genomes of all flora and fauna we know of today. This is why a piece of the genome of a banana coincides with the human genome. Bananas and humans had a latest common ancestor now lost in the mists of time. This is scientifically demonstrable.
Life was created by God. It may have happened at the level of this ancient proto-cell but it might have happened prior to that. You go back far enough and there are just organic molecules. Natural selection, the backbone of evolution, does not operate on organic molecules. Organic molecules do not have behavior. You have to have a life form that is complex enough to be able to compete for natural selection to have effect. So evolution does not address the period before life forms with behaviors. The idea that if complexity can happen, it will happen does not fly. The gap between the organization of molecules and the organization of life is to great for "it just happened."
Also, a noted American philosopher, Dr. Thomas Nagel of NYU, published a book in the last two years stating that evolution does not explain the existence of the human mind. Nagel is an atheist. He said, in essence, that the materialists need to go back to the drawing board and find something other than evolution to explain the existence of the mind.
The take away is that one should never join a church that denies science. The corollary is that Christian theism and science are not incompatible.
Yes Gordon read it all, both sides, all sides. However, I personally found the arguments against good science done well by Aron and the article to be the same old Christian apologetics. When one asserts the Gospels attest to and pass the test of the historical method as to Jesus being raised from the dead, you lost me. The Gospels can't even agree on what happened, when and who saw what or did not see it if or if anyone did or didn't. I'd read that article and others of that type as a teen, and watch, read and listen to Aron and others who explain the science behind evolution and all the baloney that Dave Pack copied from Creationist lit and go with the scientific conclusion. And I also would not have wasted three decades of my life chasing fairy tales, myths and a book that contains conflicting theologies amongst its own leadership each claiming to be the true leaders, as if they knew.
But yes, read it all and make an informed and not ill informed decision for oneself which is what we all do anyway.
My own perspective is not scoffing, it is not rebellion, it is not willful disobedience, it is not so I can sin and it is not just to be cheeky. It is informed and far more informed than apologetics can refute to my personal satisfaction.
I still say let God simply show up and cut out all the middle men. The middlemen have proved to be an impediment to the message. It's a poor way to go about such important matters for humans. Then I'd believe in what I could not refute or gravely doubt is so. And I don't mean show up a second time. I mean show up literally in every generation and remove all doubt.
As far as I'm concerned, Dennis's conclusion of "chasing fairy tales, myths and a book that contains conflicting ideologies" is intellectually dishonest. What he and similar writers are hiding is that God did initially intervene in these peoples lives to make His existence known. They fall away by failing to act upon what they understand to be right, then turn around and claim that God doesn't exist. It's Dennis and friends that have with drawn into a world of make believe and fairy tales.
You have a certain model in mind concerning what the Bible should be and how it should communicate. It involves, ideally, an account that is internally consistent in every detail, an account that is not smeared with human fingerprints. And the account should be nicely supported by secular historical accounts and archaeology. You want the Bible on your terms, your quality assurance. And your terms are not bad - somewhat like what a review committee would apply to someone's PhD dissertation.
What if the Bible is built on a different model than yours? One where the meaning is not the obvious text but the supertext, not the minutiae but the overall narrative arc from creation to recreation, not literary legalism but broad life principle?
Christ coming in every generation? Why not have him here all the time? That is what he originally intended. That model didn't work because humanity would have always said "we could have done it better if he had just left us alone."
One can proliferate such models. Our communication with God is confined to prayer and the Bible and maybe some mysticism. It is what it is.
I love Dennis. But I do like your posting very much.
Once upon a time I watching Sly's Cliffhanger movie with a bunch of students. When the plane came down and slid through the snow in emotion evokin manner, one of the students got up and said. "Dont worry people, its not real, they have special effects for that", spoiling the entire experience for the rest of us.
Was the guy wrong. No and Yes, I guess, just using a different prism.
We didn't base a lot of life changing decisions on "Cliffhanger" though. Except perhaps to never go mountainclimbing with a larger than life action hero.
N.E.O. declares, 'Natural selection, the backbone of evolution, does not operate on organic molecules. Organic molecules do not have behavior. You have to have a life form that is complex enough to be able to compete for natural selection to have effect. So evolution does not address the period before life forms with behaviors. The idea that if complexity can happen, it will happen does not fly. The gap between the organization of molecules and the organization of life is to great for "it just happened."'
I recommend Daniel C. Dennett, *From Bacteria to Bach and Back*, for a description of how the structure (not the behavior, the structure) of organic molecules can evolve. Despite his title, Dennett actually starts with molecules and explains in great detail how chemistry could have evolved into biology. Then he goes on to explain why nothing IN the brain can be the seat of the self, but how instead that wad of meat throws up on a metaphoric screen an arrangement that we recognize as a conscious self.
Good stuff. Dennett is an astoundingly talented man. You'll like his style, even if you doubt his arguments.
It certainly is a great disaster to fall for one of Satan's false prophets such as yelling, spitting, klepto-Dave Packman, the devourer of everyone's house, not just the widow's house.
However, it could also be a disaster to fall for Long Hair Ra and his godlessness.
Ra is a fraud. He emphatically states the Evolution is a fact, when in reality it is a ludicrous fairy tale. He, with certainty, states Evolution has been observed, when he has to know that we are talking adaptation within a species. Dogs don't become cats, squirrels don't turn into rabbits.
Evolution starts with incredible complexity of cellular life and then tries to use occasional DNA defects to create new species. Impossible. The DNA code shows a master programmer that is beyond human comprehension.
A Methodist preacher that I worked with used to say of atheists that "they know a lot about a lot of things but they don't know shit about anything." lol
I am not quite at the point where I believe the theory of evolution is fact. However I do think evolution is a plausible explanation of why there is life on this earth. Creation, at least the way it is explained in the bible, seems like a less credible theory to me. To me more discoveries need to be made to prove the theory of evolution.
7.09 AM James, the bible is the most accurate sociology/psychology book ever written. If you studied either or both, this would be self evident. So it had to be inspired by God himself.
No, you are not alone. Those whose opinions were formed by Herbert Armstrong and his clones will be repulsed by Aron Ra's appearance, and will reject him as a credible speaker before hearing what he has to say.
Similarly, some will learn that Herbert Armstrong in his divorce proceedings allowed into evidence the stipulated fact of his adultery with his daughter Dorothy, and did not challenge that fact when presented, and on that basis alone will conclude that HWA could not possibly be a credible speaker inspired by God.
Furthermore, some will jump to HWA's defense. Some will refuse to do the simplest of research to confirm the news reports of HWA's admission in court. Others will concede what he admitted in court, but will offer rationalizations around it, all so they can hold on to their belief in the man.
Similarly, some will jump to Aron Ra's defense and not concede that he is really little more than a popularizer who gets some stuff wrong, oversimplifies other matters to his own detriment, and needs a haircut (even if he chooses to leave it ridiculously long).
You know the old saying, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion, still."
God did initially intervene in these peoples lives to make His existence known.
If we apply this standard to those who accept the God of the Bible, we must accept it equally to those who accept the God of the Koran and the God(s) of the Book of Mormon. God intervened in Muslims' and Mormons' lives to compel them to a reasoned profession of faith, just as occurred for those who embraced Armstrongism. Yet, for some reason, Armstrongists reject God's interventions in the lives of Muslims and Mormons, while insisting that others must accept that God, rather than hope or imagination, is what has intervened in ACOG members. Anon 6:37 AM, by recognizing that we must accept God's intervention in the lives of believing Muslims and Mormons, has made a big step.
firstly, evilution is a theory, not a fact; its a theory based upon racism and presupposes some human beings today are primitive in comparison to others...
and frankly if life actually evolved from elements in the universe, the universe would be teeming with life...
12.29 PM You have done a strawman argument on what I said. It's true that my point cannot be scientifically proven to an impartial outsider. But it's not meant to be. Rather it is another point of view for a reader for consider and evaluate.
C F be yochanan Did you ever look up the blog articles on the real context and meaning of "here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept"? I didn't think so. You can't use it as you did and do.
Your understanding of scientific theory is also grossly lacking but in this area By the time something in science becomes a theory, it meets all the criteria for proof and has not failed them. If it did, it would not be a theory. Gravity is a theory. It's not an opinion as you seem to take theory to mean.
...and regarding "By the time something in science becomes a theory, it meets all the criteria for proof and has not failed them." that would explain all the revisions in so called scientific theory that arise after the additional discoveries of new evidence, right?
Your understanding of scientific theory is also grossly lacking but in this area By the time something in science becomes a theory, it meets all the criteria for proof and has not failed them. If it did, it would not be a theory. Gravity is a theory. It's not an opinion as you seem to take theory to mean.
Dennis, you keep promoting "science" but you don't really know much about it yourself. You are not qualified to tell people what is good science and what is not. Take for example just a couple of points from your above remark.
"By the time something in science becomes a theory, it meets all the criteria for proof and has not failed them."
If a theory meets "all the criteria for proof" etc, then why are some theories abandoned? Doesn't that mean they were DIS-proven? How is it that something that has been PROVEN can later be DIS-proven?
"Gravity is a theory".
What is that supposed to mean? Even monkeys know about gravity. If they let go of the branch they know they will fall down. You don't need to know anything about science to know about gravity.
So, just which theory of gravity are you talking about? There are several such theories. Are you a proponent of Einstein's theory or Tesla's? Or Newton's? Or one of the others? Have all these conflicting theories of gravity been proven? If so, they are all right! Impossible.
"...firstly, evilution is a theory, not a fact; its a theory based upon racism and presupposes some human beings today are primitive in comparison to others..."
Evolution does not necessarily presuppose that. It is an observational fact based on brain size---which varies widely from one race to another---as well as IQ, and a number of other physical traits and behavioral proclivities. For starters, take a look at some skulls on the internet comparing Australian aboriginals to Chinese. Huge difference in brain size as well as IQ.
thank you, adolf hitler...i would gladly offer my brain for study since i am a black man with an iq of 129 what graduated from college with honors...
i also would offer the brains of numerous african doctors, what i would venture to say, have even higher iqs, to support your bizzaro way of thinking...
Nobody in a blog or forum discussion can refute anybody’s strongly held opinions. The guy being refuted just digs deeper to find materials to support his beliefs. Armstrongism unfortunately taught us all to be excellent proof-texters. That’s why some topical arguments around here have gone on for years, with no clear winner.
You don't have to be a fan of Armstrong to think Ra looks a bit odd. And I doubt if many people reject him as a credible speaker just based on his looks. I think they just like to poke a little fun at him because of how he looks.
One of the big problems with evolution is that they keep changing some of the "details" of their story. Correcting errors is fine, but it seems to me that they always act like the latest version is definitive. People get tired of hearing that so evolutionists lose credibility. They have themselves to blame, at least in part, but they never seem to accept that. It's always the "stupid" creationists that are the problem.
"One of the big problems with evolution is that they keep changing some of the "details" of their story. "
That is the problem with all science.
The definition of science that by using a certain proven method of thinking and testing one comes to a conclusion that might be revised when newer or better knowledge is added to the equasion.
Without being condescending to any believer I do have the impression that also in religion and philosophy standards are adapted to up dated knowledge. (although the amish stopped somewhere along the road)
There is a huge problem with people who think they are believing or acting in the same manner as the original writers of their sacred texts in ALL major religions. The problem mostly is not the text but the inability to have adapted to latest knowledge.
As a matter of fact. It has been said by some philosophers that God the Father sent his Son Jesus for lack of complete knowledge of the human experience. Therefore Jesus needed to serve in some kind of intermediariy role in order to update Gods knowledge that seemed to be lacking behind since the last time he decided to destroy mankind and sent a rainbow to remind him of his error in the sense that this act did not completely conform to the standards of coaching and bringing his plan up to higher level. It looks like he was learning while proceeding.
One could assume underlying racism in Darwin's Origin of Species, as the book's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
Yeah.
And modern science is even worse in it being specific and precise. Perhaps NEO can enlighten us from a philosophical viewpoint what to do with the 2% neanderthals amongst us 1 percenters? Kidding aside. I am somewhat afraid modern genetic unravelling of secrets will present us with selection methods for whatever means or purposes different from the old ones, being the country club versus the ghetto. Unless the selection method comes with a (final) solution to the problems exposed.
I have a problem with Dennis reaching out to minor children. It's not Dennis' opinions that are the problem. It's his long record of representing an abusive cult. Parents, protect your kids; children of all ages are to precious to and impressionable to risk exposure to Dennis.
For those who feel that Dennis may not be the best influence upon your chuldren, I believe that a part of the village that teaches and influences children should be bikers. Rugged independence (like the pioneers), resourcefullness, loyalty, and the questioning of arbitrary authority are just a few of the areas of your child’s training in which bikers are uniquely qualified. While this is primarily for sons, your daughters could also learn much from the scooter ladies. This is true especially if you are amongst those who still believe in Petra, where good strong leaders who are rough and tumble and possess good survival skills will be required. Your sons, if properly mentored to by bikers, might very well end up preventing Petra from becoming another Jonestown or Heaven’s Gate!
9.45 AM I am no fan of Dennis, but Dennis represented himself rather than the church. The smallest unit is the individual rather than the group. God deals with each PERSON according to their works, as does mother nature. So should you.
All I know is that my family and I celebrate every anniversary of our leaving RCG. It is a great feeling of freedom! And we can actually survive on our salary.
Anon 1106, Dennis did represent the abusive WCG for years. WCG paid him, not his own self , and as such he represented them. Even if he disagreed secretly, he still took the paycheck provided by the tithers of WCG and spoke the party line enough to keep getting paid.
A scientific theory is only as good as the evidence. The truth of the matter is that there is good evidence for microevolution, but almost NO GOOD EVIDENCE for macroevolution. That is to say that Darwinian evolutionary theory poorly accounts for speciation. Aron Ra is a fraud just like David Peck.
-- With all the observations and experiments we have -- dogs stay dogs, bacteria stays bugs, and fruit flies remain fruit flies even if they have 4 wings with only two that are connected to muscles. NOTHING. NADA. -- As magnification as DNA is and could never come about by accident it can't control the body shape of anything. Go ahead, tweak DNA all you want you'll never make DNA produce anything but what it came from. CANNOT DO IT. -- The Cambrian explosion pretty much kills the idea that speciation started with one living organism. Even Darwin worried about this. KILLS IT. -- Oh yeah, human hands are similar to whales, apes, etc and etc. This can be explained just as easily with a common designer as a common ancestor. SO WHAT.
Want more? You and Mr. Ra can go have your private funeral for your religion of scientism. We've had enough. Let me know when you want to get serious and are willing to give up your narrow view of reality. The theory of Darwinian evolution is weak.
"One could assume underlying racism in Darwin's Origin of Species, as the book's full title is *On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life*."
Yes, one could assume so--largely because the term "race" as it applies to human beings has overshadowed the more general use of it to refer to population variants of lesser magnitude than subspecies. For example, there are two races of the flicker, an American woodpecker. The shafts on the underside of their primary flight feathers differ: the western one has red ones, the eastern, yellow. Darwin seems to have been thinking of that meaning, "biological varieties with minor differences," when he chose the title.
No doubt the fact that "race" is a loaded term when applied to human beings is one factor that turns people off of Darwin. It apparently helped lead to the travesty of Social Darwinism, which leads some of my literary criticism colleagues who cheerfully wallow in the Freudian muck to turn aside in revulsion at Darwin.
5.06 PM Dennis represented WCG doctrines. But he did not use abusive cult methods on members. If he mistreated members, people would have complained on this blog. I have not read any such accusations.
1.49PM Good to hear that you escaped from Daves prison. I pray that more will do so.
Some creative fellow in Britain invented Piltdown Man to fool the world by using some skull fragments and a mismatched jawbone. It was a deliberate, outright fraud rather than the result of honest scientific work. For forty years it provided the “missing link” and the “proof” of evilution.
1914-1918: World War I
The people of the world were not yet as enlightened and civilized as they thought. Only their weapons were newer and better. The people apparently still needed to “evolve” some more to attain “mental perfection.”
1939-1945: World War II
The Germans were once again reading evilutionary nonsense and imagining that they were some master race that needed to conquer or be conquered. Jews, who had come up with things like Reform Judaism in Germany in the early 1800s because they thought the Bible was now antiquated and irrelevant for a modern and enlightened people living in an enlightened age, ended up in Nazi concentration camps, gas chambers, and ovens.
1953: Piltdown Man exposed
Real science caught up with Piltdown Man when some scientists were finally allowed to examine the fragments which had been locked away and it was conclusively exposed as a forgery.
2001: How ideas claim to have triumphed
A book called evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, copyright 2001, managed to have 364 pages about the history and supposed triumph of the theory of evilution without once mentioning the Piltdown Man hoax. That is how evil ideas pretend to have triumphed.
Evilutionists like to claim that there are leftover body parts from evilution that currently serve no useful purpose. In the past, some ignorant evilutionists thought that tonsils were leftover from evilution and were unnecessary, and that all children should have their tonsils removed.
Never let any ignorant evilutionists talk you into unnecessarily parting with any of your body parts just because they do not yet know what the parts are for.
The religion of Evilution was invented by people who wanted to be sexually immoral. Evilutionists got rid of God so they could get rid of God's laws, especially the ones about sexual morality. When Piltdown Man was discovered/concocted, evilutionists used it as proof to corrupt an entire generation. When real science eventually showed it to be a deliberate fraud, the true believers did not question their evilutionary religion, but went on in search of the next outright fraud or reckless “discovery” of what was mistakenly purported to be the elusive “missing link” to support their evilutionary religion.
Evilutionists like to pass themselves off as experts on biology, but it seems like they have their heads stuck so far up their butt holes that they do not know anything about biology. When you read the writings of the modern popular evilutionists like Richard Dawkins it seems like they just want to support and promote things like homosexuality. It never even seems to occur to them that there is a great reason and purpose for having the male and female sexes.
Evilutionists and their accomplices in the mainstream media give the impression that everyone is sexually active and that STDs are not a concern. All this prolific, no-consequence, sexual activity portrayed on the boob tube has fooled many people who cannot tell fiction from reality. Impressionable youths in high school and college, barely out of their diapers, get brainwashed by all the godless evilutionary propaganda into thinking that they are highly educated and sophisticated if they have no morals. The result is that, in April 2002, the lead author of an article in the medical journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases stated that new STD infections occur in approximately 3 million teenagers each and every year in the U.S.
And that is just the teenagers! There are a lot of stupid and immoral adults walking around with crotch rot that they contracted as a result of the brain rot that came from listening to evilutionists tell them how highly educated and sophisticated they are if they have no godly morals.
BB, I would have liked to endorse your message but 7:43 just taught me that no morals can come from men in latex. (la tex, what an odd combination of the locations of both ac colleges) Now would the letter value of latex in scrabble be 666? Speculative minds like to know.
The millenials in church who will turn out like the bloggers over here will at least not be discussing obsolete topics like evolution and the dangers of unprotected sex anymore. We are the last generation to discuss this nasty habit.
"The Missing Dimension in Sex", will be recopyrigthed as "The missing dimension in gene editing." accompanied with the article free for the asking, "Why does God clone himself? You awesome destiny."
T06 zi disagreed and did not enforce belief in the stupid WCG peripherals such as male up, doctors, BI, divorce and remarriage and some of the how it's of Sabbath and HD observance that caused hardship or boredom. KOG, second coming, salvation topics and the majors I held on to. If you think educated pastors and theologians agree with their organization 100% you are naive. Their organizations and congregations just don't mind is the difference.
Why Men Have Nipples As embryos in the womb, males and females have similar tissues and body parts. In fact, all embryos start out as female, which is why nipples are present in both sexes.
In boys, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone bring about changes to the embryo, including the growth of the penis and testicles. However, because the nipples have already developed before the sex of the baby is determined, the nipples stay. These vestigial nipples have no functional use.
I do not discriminate. I like all nipples. Mine are fine adornment. If only the mysterious species would have them, I would consider tattooing them on the torso canvass for optical balance.
Nck (male and indiscriminate on the nipple issues right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness)
Yes, teenagers, think for yourself, and don’t allow a cult with a 40 year plus failure record to cause you the personal setbacks that so many of us have had to endure or fight! You guys have so many resources today that we simply did not have back around the time we were mailing in our applications to Embarrassing College.
ReplyDeleteAron Ra may not appeal to you if you were raised in an ACOG. But, his is only one out of many voices. There are even resources out there who groom themselves and dress more in keeping with the standards with which you grew up. You just have to look for them. The most important action item you could possibly have in your life right now is that of proving all things by seeking out second and third opinions. Weigh conflicting opinions as part of your own personal sifting process. At least investigate all possibilities. I sincerely wish someone had presented this advice to me in an acceptable manner back when I had been conditioned to believe that “prove all things” meant reading the church literature and nodding my head in assent.
BB
Me too BB...me too
ReplyDeleteyet when one does indeed think for his self but their conclusions are in disagreement with yours, then you want to mock them and call them names...
Deletewhat you really mean when you say "think for yourself" is think like us, and agree with us...
c f ben yochanan
And, while your doing your research, please remember that you don't have to figure it all out right now. In fact, I hope that you will rapidly come to the conclusion that your search is going to be a lifelong process, and that NOBODY has figured it all out!
ReplyDeleteBB
ReplyDeleteI would add the qualification that seeking out second and third opinions only makes sense if the people asked are cut from a differing cloth. I once asked several church members advice on a personal matter. They all gave the same answer, and it proved to be wrong. The reason being (as experience later proved) that they were partial to evil people. The majority can be wrong.
Asking several people only works if they are of a good character, and even then, they can be wrong out of lack of understanding.
BB... They were trained to all speak the same thing that there be no divisions among them. 😱😇
ReplyDeleteYes both to 2:45, and to Dennis at 3:37. It would make no sense whatever if a teenager’s first, second and third opinions all came from Armstrongites. The objective is checks and balances, not “all speaking the same thing.”
DeleteBB
And, Young People, you could also take a look at links such as http://freethinkingministries.com/aron-ra-10-bad-arguments-for-atheism/
ReplyDeleteI still see young Jehovah Witnesses standing on street corners pushing their wares, it doesn't matter the age, if someone likes being brainwashed what can you do?
ReplyDeleteLet me sound a note for theistic evolution. Even though it is clear that natural selection had a significant role in speciation, it does not easily explain everything back to the origin.
ReplyDeleteAll life is derived from a single original cell. The cell had the genetic complexity to give rise to the genomes of all flora and fauna we know of today. This is why a piece of the genome of a banana coincides with the human genome. Bananas and humans had a latest common ancestor now lost in the mists of time. This is scientifically demonstrable.
Life was created by God. It may have happened at the level of this ancient proto-cell but it might have happened prior to that. You go back far enough and there are just organic molecules. Natural selection, the backbone of evolution, does not operate on organic molecules. Organic molecules do not have behavior. You have to have a life form that is complex enough to be able to compete for natural selection to have effect. So evolution does not address the period before life forms with behaviors. The idea that if complexity can happen, it will happen does not fly. The gap between the organization of molecules and the organization of life is to great for "it just happened."
Also, a noted American philosopher, Dr. Thomas Nagel of NYU, published a book in the last two years stating that evolution does not explain the existence of the human mind. Nagel is an atheist. He said, in essence, that the materialists need to go back to the drawing board and find something other than evolution to explain the existence of the mind.
The take away is that one should never join a church that denies science. The corollary is that Christian theism and science are not incompatible.
Yes Gordon read it all, both sides, all sides. However, I personally found the arguments against good science done well by Aron and the article to be the same old Christian apologetics. When one asserts the Gospels attest to and pass the test of the historical method as to Jesus being raised from the dead, you lost me. The Gospels can't even agree on what happened, when and who saw what or did not see it if or if anyone did or didn't. I'd read that article and others of that type as a teen, and watch, read and listen to Aron and others who explain the science behind evolution and all the baloney that Dave Pack copied from Creationist lit and go with the scientific conclusion. And I also would not have wasted three decades of my life chasing fairy tales, myths and a book that contains conflicting theologies amongst its own leadership each claiming to be the true leaders, as if they knew.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, read it all and make an informed and not ill informed decision for oneself which is what we all do anyway.
My own perspective is not scoffing, it is not rebellion, it is not willful disobedience, it is not so I can sin and it is not just to be cheeky. It is informed and far more informed than apologetics can refute to my personal satisfaction.
I still say let God simply show up and cut out all the middle men. The middlemen have proved to be an impediment to the message. It's a poor way to go about such important matters for humans. Then I'd believe in what I could not refute or gravely doubt is so. And I don't mean show up a second time. I mean show up literally in every generation and remove all doubt.
As far as I'm concerned, Dennis's conclusion of "chasing fairy tales, myths and a book that contains conflicting ideologies" is intellectually dishonest. What he and similar writers are hiding is that God did initially intervene in these peoples lives to make His existence known. They fall away by failing to act upon what they understand to be right, then turn around and claim that God doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteIt's Dennis and friends that have with drawn into a world of make believe and fairy tales.
Anon 6:37
ReplyDeleteDo you know how the bible came to be? If you did you would not post what you did.
DD:
ReplyDeleteYou have a certain model in mind concerning what the Bible should be and how it should communicate. It involves, ideally, an account that is internally consistent in every detail, an account that is not smeared with human fingerprints. And the account should be nicely supported by secular historical accounts and archaeology. You want the Bible on your terms, your quality assurance. And your terms are not bad - somewhat like what a review committee would apply to someone's PhD dissertation.
What if the Bible is built on a different model than yours? One where the meaning is not the obvious text but the supertext, not the minutiae but the overall narrative arc from creation to recreation, not literary legalism but broad life principle?
Christ coming in every generation? Why not have him here all the time? That is what he originally intended. That model didn't work because humanity would have always said "we could have done it better if he had just left us alone."
One can proliferate such models. Our communication with God is confined to prayer and the Bible and maybe some mysticism. It is what it is.
NEO
ReplyDeleteI love Dennis. But I do like your posting very much.
Once upon a time I watching Sly's Cliffhanger movie with a bunch of students. When the plane came down and slid through the snow in emotion evokin manner, one of the students got up and said. "Dont worry people, its not real, they have special effects for that", spoiling the entire experience for the rest of us.
Was the guy wrong. No and Yes, I guess, just using a different prism.
We didn't base a lot of life changing decisions on "Cliffhanger" though. Except perhaps to never go mountainclimbing with a larger than life action hero.
Nck
N.E.O. declares, 'Natural selection, the backbone of evolution, does not operate on organic molecules. Organic molecules do not have behavior. You have to have a life form that is complex enough to be able to compete for natural selection to have effect. So evolution does not address the period before life forms with behaviors. The idea that if complexity can happen, it will happen does not fly. The gap between the organization of molecules and the organization of life is to great for "it just happened."'
ReplyDeleteI recommend Daniel C. Dennett, *From Bacteria to Bach and Back*, for a description of how the structure (not the behavior, the structure) of organic molecules can evolve. Despite his title, Dennett actually starts with molecules and explains in great detail how chemistry could have evolved into biology. Then he goes on to explain why nothing IN the brain can be the seat of the self, but how instead that wad of meat throws up on a metaphoric screen an arrangement that we recognize as a conscious self.
Good stuff. Dennett is an astoundingly talented man. You'll like his style, even if you doubt his arguments.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly is a great disaster to fall for one of Satan's false prophets such as yelling, spitting, klepto-Dave Packman, the devourer of everyone's house, not just the widow's house.
However, it could also be a disaster to fall for Long Hair Ra and his godlessness.
There are other alternatives.
Ra is a fraud. He emphatically states the Evolution is a fact, when in reality it is a ludicrous fairy tale. He, with certainty, states Evolution has been observed, when he has to know that we are talking adaptation within a species. Dogs don't become cats, squirrels don't turn into rabbits.
ReplyDeleteEvolution starts with incredible complexity of cellular life and then tries to use occasional DNA defects to create new species. Impossible. The DNA code shows a master programmer that is beyond human comprehension.
A Methodist preacher that I worked with used to say of atheists that "they know a lot about a lot of things but they don't know shit about anything." lol
ReplyDeleteHMM... If HENRY AARON married AARON RA, would he go by the name...
ReplyDeleteHENRY AARON RA ?
And if the reverse were true, would it be AARON AARON?
Inquiring minds need to know!
Am I alone in the opinion that the guy in the video looks creepy as hell!
ReplyDeleteI am not quite at the point where I believe the theory of evolution is fact. However I do think evolution is a plausible explanation of why there is life on this earth. Creation, at least the way it is explained in the bible, seems like a less credible theory to me. To me more discoveries need to be made to prove the theory of evolution.
ReplyDelete7.09 AM
ReplyDeleteJames, the bible is the most accurate sociology/psychology book ever written. If you studied either or both, this would be self evident. So it had to be inspired by God himself.
Anon 11:27 AM,
ReplyDeleteNo, you are not alone. Those whose opinions were formed by Herbert Armstrong and his clones will be repulsed by Aron Ra's appearance, and will reject him as a credible speaker before hearing what he has to say.
Similarly, some will learn that Herbert Armstrong in his divorce proceedings allowed into evidence the stipulated fact of his adultery with his daughter Dorothy, and did not challenge that fact when presented, and on that basis alone will conclude that HWA could not possibly be a credible speaker inspired by God.
Furthermore, some will jump to HWA's defense. Some will refuse to do the simplest of research to confirm the news reports of HWA's admission in court. Others will concede what he admitted in court, but will offer rationalizations around it, all so they can hold on to their belief in the man.
Similarly, some will jump to Aron Ra's defense and not concede that he is really little more than a popularizer who gets some stuff wrong, oversimplifies other matters to his own detriment, and needs a haircut (even if he chooses to leave it ridiculously long).
You know the old saying, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion, still."
I appreciate this admission by Anon 6:37 AM:
ReplyDeleteGod did initially intervene in these peoples lives to make His existence known.
If we apply this standard to those who accept the God of the Bible, we must accept it equally to those who accept the God of the Koran and the God(s) of the Book of Mormon. God intervened in Muslims' and Mormons' lives to compel them to a reasoned profession of faith, just as occurred for those who embraced Armstrongism. Yet, for some reason, Armstrongists reject God's interventions in the lives of Muslims and Mormons, while insisting that others must accept that God, rather than hope or imagination, is what has intervened in ACOG members. Anon 6:37 AM, by recognizing that we must accept God's intervention in the lives of believing Muslims and Mormons, has made a big step.
firstly, evilution is a theory, not a fact; its a theory based upon racism and presupposes some human beings today are primitive in comparison to others...
ReplyDeleteand frankly if life actually evolved from elements in the universe, the universe would be teeming with life...
c f ben yochanan
12.29 PM
ReplyDeleteYou have done a strawman argument on what I said. It's true that my point cannot be scientifically proven to an impartial outsider. But it's not meant to be. Rather it is another point of view for a reader for consider and evaluate.
C F be yochanan
ReplyDeleteDid you ever look up the blog articles on the real context and meaning of "here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept"? I didn't think so. You can't use it as you did and do.
Your understanding of scientific theory is also grossly lacking but in this area By the time something in science becomes a theory, it meets all the criteria for proof and has not failed them. If it did, it would not be a theory. Gravity is a theory. It's not an opinion as you seem to take theory to mean.
dude, simply provide a link and i will be more than happy to take a look...
Delete...and regarding "By the time something in science becomes a theory, it meets all the criteria for proof and has not failed them." that would explain all the revisions in so called scientific theory that arise after the additional discoveries of new evidence, right?
Deleteand btw, there is proof that gravity exists...there is no proof that there is life in outer space, NONE...
Deletec f ben yochanan
Your understanding of scientific theory is also grossly lacking but in this area By the time something in science becomes a theory, it meets all the criteria for proof and has not failed them. If it did, it would not be a theory. Gravity is a theory. It's not an opinion as you seem to take theory to mean.
ReplyDeleteDennis, you keep promoting "science" but you don't really know much about it yourself. You are not qualified to tell people what is good science and what is not. Take for example just a couple of points from your above remark.
"By the time something in science becomes a theory, it meets all the criteria for proof and has not failed them."
If a theory meets "all the criteria for proof" etc, then why are some theories abandoned? Doesn't that mean they were DIS-proven? How is it that something that has been PROVEN can later be DIS-proven?
"Gravity is a theory".
What is that supposed to mean? Even monkeys know about gravity. If they let go of the branch they know they will fall down. You don't need to know anything about science to know about gravity.
So, just which theory of gravity are you talking about? There are several such theories. Are you a proponent of Einstein's theory or Tesla's? Or Newton's? Or one of the others? Have all these conflicting theories of gravity been proven? If so, they are all right! Impossible.
"...firstly, evilution is a theory, not a fact; its a theory based upon racism and presupposes some human beings today are primitive in comparison to others..."
ReplyDeleteEvolution does not necessarily presuppose that. It is an observational fact based on brain size---which varies widely from one race to another---as well as IQ, and a number of other physical traits and behavioral proclivities. For starters, take a look at some skulls on the internet comparing Australian aboriginals to Chinese. Huge difference in brain size as well as IQ.
thank you, adolf hitler...i would gladly offer my brain for study since i am a black man with an iq of 129 what graduated from college with honors...
Deletei also would offer the brains of numerous african doctors, what i would venture to say, have even higher iqs, to support your bizzaro way of thinking...
c f ben yochanan
Nobody in a blog or forum discussion can refute anybody’s strongly held opinions. The guy being refuted just digs deeper to find materials to support his beliefs. Armstrongism unfortunately taught us all to be excellent proof-texters. That’s why some topical arguments around here have gone on for years, with no clear winner.
ReplyDeleteBB
You don't have to be a fan of Armstrong to think Ra looks a bit odd. And I doubt if many people reject him as a credible speaker just based on his looks. I think they just like to poke a little fun at him because of how he looks.
ReplyDeleteOne of the big problems with evolution is that they keep changing some of the "details" of their story. Correcting errors is fine, but it seems to me that they always act like the latest version is definitive. People get tired of hearing that so evolutionists lose credibility. They have themselves to blame, at least in part, but they never seem to accept that. It's always the "stupid" creationists that are the problem.
ReplyDelete"One of the big problems with evolution is that they keep changing some of the "details" of their story. "
ReplyDeleteThat is the problem with all science.
The definition of science that by using a certain proven method of thinking and testing one comes to a conclusion that might be revised when newer or better knowledge is added to the equasion.
Without being condescending to any believer I do have the impression that also in religion and philosophy standards are adapted to up dated knowledge. (although the amish stopped somewhere along the road)
There is a huge problem with people who think they are believing or acting in the same manner as the original writers of their sacred texts in ALL major religions. The problem mostly is not the text but the inability to have adapted to latest knowledge.
As a matter of fact. It has been said by some philosophers that God the Father sent his Son Jesus for lack of complete knowledge of the human experience. Therefore Jesus needed to serve in some kind of intermediariy role in order to update Gods knowledge that seemed to be lacking behind since the last time he decided to destroy mankind and sent a rainbow to remind him of his error in the sense that this act did not completely conform to the standards of coaching and bringing his plan up to higher level. It looks like he was learning while proceeding.
nck
8:20 PM:
ReplyDeleteOne of the big problems with evolution is that they keep changing some of the "details" of their story.
Armstrongists think this is a proof that science is bogus, but when HWA and his minions do it (Pentecost, D&R, 1975, etc.) it is somehow OK.
a theory based upon racism
ReplyDeleteOne could assume underlying racism in Darwin's Origin of Species, as the book's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
There are transducers that can 'see' gravity waves. Submarines use them to give a outline of the ocean floor. So it's more than a theory.
ReplyDelete"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
ReplyDeleteYeah.
And modern science is even worse in it being specific and precise. Perhaps NEO can enlighten us from a philosophical viewpoint what to do with the 2% neanderthals amongst us 1 percenters? Kidding aside. I am somewhat afraid modern genetic unravelling of secrets will present us with selection methods for whatever means or purposes different from the old ones, being the country club versus the ghetto. Unless the selection method comes with a (final) solution to the problems exposed.
nck
I have a problem with Dennis reaching out to minor children.
ReplyDeleteIt's not Dennis' opinions that are the problem.
It's his long record of representing an abusive cult.
Parents, protect your kids; children of all ages are to precious to and impressionable to risk exposure to Dennis.
For those who feel that Dennis may not be the best influence upon your chuldren, I believe that a part of the village that teaches and influences children should be bikers. Rugged independence (like the pioneers), resourcefullness, loyalty, and the questioning of arbitrary authority are just a few of the areas of your child’s training in which bikers are uniquely qualified. While this is primarily for sons, your daughters could also learn much from the scooter ladies.
DeleteThis is true especially if you are amongst those who still believe in Petra, where good strong leaders who are rough and tumble and possess good survival skills will be required. Your sons, if properly mentored to by bikers, might very well end up preventing Petra from becoming another Jonestown or Heaven’s Gate!
BB
9.45 AM
ReplyDeleteI am no fan of Dennis, but Dennis represented himself rather than the church. The smallest unit is the individual rather than the group. God deals with each PERSON according to their works, as does mother nature. So should you.
All I know is that my family and I celebrate every anniversary of our leaving RCG. It is a great feeling of freedom! And we can actually survive on our salary.
ReplyDeleteAnon 1106, Dennis did represent the abusive WCG for years. WCG paid him, not his own self , and as such he represented them. Even if he disagreed secretly, he still took the paycheck provided by the tithers of WCG and spoke the party line enough to keep getting paid.
ReplyDeleteTo DennisCDiehl:
ReplyDeleteA scientific theory is only as good as the evidence. The truth of the matter is that there is good evidence for microevolution, but almost NO GOOD EVIDENCE for macroevolution. That is to say that Darwinian evolutionary theory poorly accounts for speciation. Aron Ra is a fraud just like David Peck.
-- With all the observations and experiments we have -- dogs stay dogs, bacteria stays bugs, and fruit flies remain fruit flies even if they have 4 wings with only two that are connected to muscles. NOTHING. NADA.
-- As magnification as DNA is and could never come about by accident it can't control the body shape of anything. Go ahead, tweak DNA all you want you'll never make DNA produce anything but what it came from. CANNOT DO IT.
-- The Cambrian explosion pretty much kills the idea that speciation started with one living organism. Even Darwin worried about this. KILLS IT.
-- Oh yeah, human hands are similar to whales, apes, etc and etc. This can be explained just as easily with a common designer as a common ancestor. SO WHAT.
Want more? You and Mr. Ra can go have your private funeral for your religion of scientism. We've had enough. Let me know when you want to get serious and are willing to give up your narrow view of reality. The theory of Darwinian evolution is weak.
I got more.
Hoss suggests at 5:27 AM:
ReplyDelete"One could assume underlying racism in Darwin's Origin of Species, as the book's full title is *On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life*."
Yes, one could assume so--largely because the term "race" as it applies to human beings has overshadowed the more general use of it to refer to population variants of lesser magnitude than subspecies. For example, there are two races of the flicker, an American woodpecker. The shafts on the underside of their primary flight feathers differ: the western one has red ones, the eastern, yellow. Darwin seems to have been thinking of that meaning, "biological varieties with minor differences," when he chose the title.
No doubt the fact that "race" is a loaded term when applied to human beings is one factor that turns people off of Darwin. It apparently helped lead to the travesty of Social Darwinism, which leads some of my literary criticism colleagues who cheerfully wallow in the Freudian muck to turn aside in revulsion at Darwin.
5.06 PM
ReplyDeleteDennis represented WCG doctrines. But he did not use abusive cult methods on members. If he mistreated members, people would have complained on this blog. I have not read any such accusations.
1.49PM
Good to hear that you escaped from Daves prison. I pray that more will do so.
ReplyDeleteHistory of Deliberate Evilutionary Lies and Wars
1912: Piltdown Man invented
Some creative fellow in Britain invented Piltdown Man to fool the world by using some skull fragments and a mismatched jawbone. It was a deliberate, outright fraud rather than the result of honest scientific work. For forty years it provided the “missing link” and the “proof” of evilution.
1914-1918: World War I
The people of the world were not yet as enlightened and civilized as they thought. Only their weapons were newer and better. The people apparently still needed to “evolve” some more to attain “mental perfection.”
1939-1945: World War II
The Germans were once again reading evilutionary nonsense and imagining that they were some master race that needed to conquer or be conquered. Jews, who had come up with things like Reform Judaism in Germany in the early 1800s because they thought the Bible was now antiquated and irrelevant for a modern and enlightened people living in an enlightened age, ended up in Nazi concentration camps, gas chambers, and ovens.
1953: Piltdown Man exposed
Real science caught up with Piltdown Man when some scientists were finally allowed to examine the fragments which had been locked away and it was conclusively exposed as a forgery.
2001: How ideas claim to have triumphed
A book called evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, copyright 2001, managed to have 364 pages about the history and supposed triumph of the theory of evilution without once mentioning the Piltdown Man hoax. That is how evil ideas pretend to have triumphed.
ReplyDeleteEvilutionists like to claim that there are leftover body parts from evilution that currently serve no useful purpose. In the past, some ignorant evilutionists thought that tonsils were leftover from evilution and were unnecessary, and that all children should have their tonsils removed.
Never let any ignorant evilutionists talk you into unnecessarily parting with any of your body parts just because they do not yet know what the parts are for.
The term is vestigial, not unneccessary, not left over. Anyone ever heard of the pineal gland?
DeleteBB
ReplyDeleteThe religion of Evilution was invented by people who wanted to be sexually immoral. Evilutionists got rid of God so they could get rid of God's laws, especially the ones about sexual morality. When Piltdown Man was discovered/concocted, evilutionists used it as proof to corrupt an entire generation. When real science eventually showed it to be a deliberate fraud, the true believers did not question their evilutionary religion, but went on in search of the next outright fraud or reckless “discovery” of what was mistakenly purported to be the elusive “missing link” to support their evilutionary religion.
Evilutionists like to pass themselves off as experts on biology, but it seems like they have their heads stuck so far up their butt holes that they do not know anything about biology. When you read the writings of the modern popular evilutionists like Richard Dawkins it seems like they just want to support and promote things like homosexuality. It never even seems to occur to them that there is a great reason and purpose for having the male and female sexes.
Evilutionists and their accomplices in the mainstream media give the impression that everyone is sexually active and that STDs are not a concern. All this prolific, no-consequence, sexual activity portrayed on the boob tube has fooled many people who cannot tell fiction from reality. Impressionable youths in high school and college, barely out of their diapers, get brainwashed by all the godless evilutionary propaganda into thinking that they are highly educated and sophisticated if they have no morals. The result is that, in April 2002, the lead author of an article in the medical journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases stated that new STD infections occur in approximately 3 million teenagers each and every year in the U.S.
And that is just the teenagers! There are a lot of stupid and immoral adults walking around with crotch rot that they contracted as a result of the brain rot that came from listening to evilutionists tell them how highly educated and sophisticated they are if they have no godly morals.
BB, I would have liked to endorse your message but 7:43 just taught me that no morals can come from men in latex. (la tex, what an odd combination of the locations of both ac colleges) Now would the letter value of latex in scrabble be 666? Speculative minds like to know.
ReplyDeletenck
The millenials in church who will turn out like the bloggers over here will at least not be discussing obsolete topics like evolution and the dangers of unprotected sex anymore. We are the last generation to discuss this nasty habit.
ReplyDelete"The Missing Dimension in Sex", will be recopyrigthed as "The missing dimension in gene editing." accompanied with the article free for the asking, "Why does God clone himself? You awesome destiny."
www.economist.com/news/leaders/21717035-ways-reproducing-without-sexual-intercourse-are-multiplying-history-suggests-they-should?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/geneeditingclonesandthescienceofmakingbabies
nck
743 you're full of ka ka
ReplyDelete733. Ever wonder why you have nipples?
ReplyDeleteSilly! Nipples are for chicks to lick, pinch, and bite.
DeleteBB
T06 zi disagreed and did not enforce belief in the stupid WCG peripherals such as male up, doctors, BI, divorce and remarriage and some of the how it's of Sabbath and HD observance that caused hardship or boredom. KOG, second coming, salvation topics and the majors I held on to. If you think educated pastors and theologians agree with their organization 100% you are naive. Their organizations and congregations just don't mind is the difference.
ReplyDeleteDennis Diehl said...
ReplyDelete733. Ever wonder why you have nipples?
Dennis. That is because we are created in the image of God.
nck
In reality...
ReplyDeleteWhy Men Have Nipples
As embryos in the womb, males and females have similar tissues and body parts. In fact, all embryos start out as female, which is why nipples are present in both sexes.
In boys, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone bring about changes to the embryo, including the growth of the penis and testicles. However, because the nipples have already developed before the sex of the baby is determined, the nipples stay. These vestigial nipples have no functional use.
I do not discriminate. I like all nipples. Mine are fine adornment. If only the mysterious species would have them, I would consider tattooing them on the torso canvass for optical balance.
ReplyDeleteNck (male and indiscriminate on the nipple issues right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness)