Saturday, February 3, 2018

I'm not posting this......

....to challenge your faith or steal your crown.  I'm not posting this to convince you of evolution.  I'm not posting this to give you a chance to make inane comments about Aron Ra's hair  in the same way Dave Pack dismissed Einstein because he "had wild hair."  (Idiot)   I clearly appreciate Aron's understanding of the topic compared to Dave Pack's ignorance of it.

I post this as an example of how badly Dave defends his views when he is clearly out of his league. I simply enjoy the takedown of Dave, over and over , as one who knows nothing about the topic of Evolution yet pretends he does with his bombast and authoritarian presentation.  Over and over Aron proves Dave a liar whose sources are bogus and his conclusions ridiculous.  Dave is out of his league here and needs to be exposed as such.

I'd debate Dave Pack on the Bible in a heart beat but still waiting..........................

Dave is also out of his league in his understanding of the Bible.  Dave is not "brilliant" as some declare.  Dave is clever and at times not much that either.

Dave is so out of date on everything including theology and higher criticism issues of all things Biblical he cries out at one point "Poppy Cock!"  LOL....   I heard HWA utter that rebuttal to something he also did not understand and Dave has HWA stuck in his head.  I have only ever heard HWA and now Dave Pack use the term to dismiss what is evidently true.

So if you, who are Christians get offended at me posting this most enjoyable take down of David C Pack, Fake Minister and Fake Theologian, you'll simply have to forgive me...

Those who wish to learn more in 30 minutes than in the last 30 years in Church and see how easily Dave Pack is taken apart topic by topic and boast by boast
enjoy...

Dave is equally ignorant of the Bible he claims to see himself as spoken of by the Prophets in as well.


92 comments:

Byker Bob said...

No problem, Dennis. Any Christian with any sense believes in theistic evolution. As for Aron’s hair, hey, it’s just one of many, many possible styles. Funny thing is, some of the COGlodyte ministers preach that you shouldn’t shave your head because Satanic ministers like Anton LaVey shaved their heads. I bet some pretty evil people even slicked their hair straight back, using Brylcream.

BB

blue52 said...

Since Dennis is such a prolific writer with so many opinions he feels he must share. I am hoping he could share in the form of an instructional chart. The column to the left would included all Armstrong doctrines listed down vertically. The next column to the right would be titled all the Armstrong doctrines Dennis didn't really believe in and in this column he would go down the list of Armstrong doctrines and mark each he didn't really believe in with an X. The next column to the right would be for Dennis to mark with an X all the Armstrong doctrines he enforced on others. The next column to the right would be for Dennis to mark with an X all Armstrong doctrines Dennis collected a paycheck for standing behind. The last column would be for Dennis to mark an X for every Armstrong doctrine he enforced or was paid for that he would now like to pay restitution for. Forget Dave Pack, I wonder how many Xs would appear on Dennis chart? Is anyone else interested in the facts on Dennis and doctrines?

Anonymous said...

Whether this guy knows what he's talking about or not I don't know and can't say, but I know enough about style to tell you his hair does not go with his suit.

Percy K. Euttodd said...

What an abomination! Look at that hair! Can't possibly say anything true with hair like that!

Now that we've got that ad hominem out of the way, maybe we can deal with more substantive issues...

Anonymous said...

Dennis Said
So if you, who are Christians get offended at me posting this most enjoyable take down of David C Pack, Fake Minister and Fake Theologian, you'll simply have to forgive me...

My Comment: I do not believe a person who has the faith a Christian should have, will waste their time trying to take down David C Pack. A Christian secure in their faith has a faith in the biblical God and the value of the biblical writings to the lives of those who choose to use them. To take down David C Pack without supporting the true value of the Christian faith leaves them with a world that is filled with people who are searching for a life that has meaning and purpose. The Christian focus is destroying sin and the behavior that destroys people. The world today seems to enjoy taking down people by revealing sinful behavior without giving any hope for redemption. I personally doubt that this posting that takes down David C Pack will change him or benefit many of the people that are joined with him, but that is just my opinion. AB

Anonymous said...

He looks like a villain from a James Bond movie.
There's a interesting article on evolution in this months (March) issue of the PCGs Trumpet magazine.

Anonymous said...

It never fails that Armstrongites get all pissy over hair as if that invalidates the subject, or that he is an atheist who believes in evolution and also knows David Pack is a blithering idiot. They don't have the mental capacity to be able to discern truths, even when it comes from those they don't agree with.

Anonymous said...

BB
Well, I'm a Christian with sense, but I do not believe in theistic evolution.
This is another example of your prodigal son days weakening you and robbing you of the ability to stand separate from the warmth of the crowd.
A Christian follows Christ and the truth rather than the warmth of the herd.
Don't do a prodigal son folks. You never fully recover.

Slick said...

How does knowing any of this help with my mundane life? I get up every morning and go to work for 12 hours. I work 3 days off 2 days every week and have been doing this same routine since 1986. I get payed every 2 weeks and after I pay my bills I have just enough money to get a few groceries that if I'm lucky might last till my next payday. So, just how the hell does any of this remotely help?

Anonymous said...

A necktie is the worst fashion statement since the advent of the poncho.

Byker Bob said...

You are entitled to your opinions, 10:28. My perspective is that I came back better, because I am no longer encumbered by the Armstrong heresies, and anti-Christian values. God gave us our minds to utilize and to think.

BB

Dennis Diehl said...

GTA chided me in his office when I was 18 for my hair covering my forehead and sent me to the camp...campus barber to get it cut. He said the forehead was the seat of intellect or some such BS. I wish I had asked him if the skull blocked it too? But those were dangerous times between me and him

Dennis Diehl said...

The intellectual, theological and scientific ignore-ance (what is ignored) in the COG splits and splinters is astounding. The shallow and uncritical responses to such aren't too shabby either

DennisCDiehl said...

Blue 52 asked "Is anyone else interested in the facts on Dennis and doctrines?"

I never found much in British Israelism and never gave a sermon on it. I didn't think it all that important to the New Testament as I understood it in my Christian Reformed Calvinistic background. I never gave a sermon on going to any Petra or place of safety. No one seemed to care that I didn't. I may have thought them to have "we'll see" qualities or just of interest in my historically naïve youth about such things, but they weren't a part of my thinking.

Tithing was not a problem but again I did not give sermons on it much if at all. I personally hated having to give the Holyday offering spiel and simply left it as give as you are able.

Sabbath in WCG was about like my growing up in the Dutch Reformed mode, yet DF was much more rigorous. I was memorizing whole chapters of the Bible in second grade thru eights in my church school. Went to church morning, for sunday school, evening and after services for youth group. Had to attend catechism classes once a week after school. From the start if someone had a work Sabbath conflict, they generally worked out but I did not tell them what they had to do . Many a member had to do certain things once a year, seminars , trade shows etc for work and I simply told them church would be here next week. That's how I grew up and it seemed unreasonable to me to lose work over rest. If they could not attend the Feast, so be it. I gave away much of my 2-T to members so they could enjoy themselves. I took my children to the zoo after churches on the rare times I didn't have to go to two services cities apart. Our churches always met in the park for picnics after services when possible.

I anointed for sickness per James 5:14 and told them they needed to see their doctor or go to the ER etc. I'd visit them there. I had an assistant who told them from the pulpit that he'd either visit them in hospital or anoint them but NOT BOTH. I had him retract that the next week. He still is a minister of not good reputation to this day. I took people for mental health appointments that they resisted until I talk with them about how prayer and fasting did not help with the skills needed to handle life's ups and downs. I have no regrets and my congregations knew they could rest easy on these things with me . Some toughed out everything from kidney stones to appendicitis waiting on healing and I sat with them supporting the choice but also suggesting they could get some help. Some got mad I did that but that's me. I saw no need in needless suffering in this day and age.

continue...

DennisCDiehl said...

....
Some one asked me in the 70's what was the difference between surgery and getting a tooth pulled or root canal. I said "with teeth the entrance to get at it is already there is all."
I had my kids vaccinated in the 70's and the church knew it. When I gave them the form for exemptions from that I asked them if this was because they believed this or was it because they felt pressure to do so. I got both answers.

If someone could not tithe in practical fact or "faith", no biggie. Give as you are able.

As for the Armstrongs and HWA in particular, I always felt he would die as do we all and all speculation was just that. There would be a new generation that would correct the old misconceptions and the church would go on. I thought I was there to have a part in that. Wrong! lol. Rank and authority never impressed me so I did not fear the minister types over me. I either tolerated them or avoided them.

On science, at first I believed the view of the God of the gaps, pre-flood world, Satan's rebellion and recreation. The 6000 years ago thing seemed stretching it. Evolution of all life as understood today seemed to be true for many of those years to me but no one cared what I believed on that from what I could tell. I now take it as fact with my previous church apologetics for the world of fossils, geology and hominids relegated to the dump.

I tolerated Spokesman's Club for a long time but it was not my favorite time of the week. It was routine, opinions in topics were along church lines, working men were busy so speeches were often less than stellar and it simply became expected to take place. I skipped having them many a year for those reasons. I don't like people doing things out of imagined obligations or compliance when they are thinking something else.

There are things I would still have done, said, thought and taught differently now of course in the hindsight of age and experience, but I have little regrets over enforcing anything. That was just not me ever. I grew up differently than the WCG ministerial mindset and it showed.

This post as all others is not meant to make it about me but some of you insist. If I am a former "Ministurd" to you, I accept that. Chances are we never met as pastor and member. I also do not care because I know me better than you do .

Some of you anonymous types should be as honest and open about your own compliances and actual names and affiliations.

DennisCDiehl said...

Getting involved as a kid beginning at 14 was the biggest mistake of my life albeit my choice at the time. My parents were not happy I was going to AC and I had to sneak my application under my parka to mail it. When the minister called me to set up a visit, my parents caught on and invited him over. They became very good friends. My dad always said that he'd pay for any school I chose EAST of the Mississippi. I wish I had taken him up on that.

Live and burn...although I'll go with nothing is for nothing no matter what the nothing is.

RSK said...

Both by Nimrod, I'll bet. :)

DennisCDiehl said...

And Blue52, I'd love to see your chart too. In reality, many members complied with church teachings even when they doubted them or at best took them as not important in their daily lives or mere speculation. Presbyterians, Catholics and Baptists do that too. I was not the only one who thought Gerald Waterhouse was kidding himself or HWA thought too much of himself. Many went along to get along in my experience because that's what you do when you are part of an organization you find important to you for many reasons but comes with baggage to tolerate.

The Apostle Paul commanded people, that there be no division, to all speak the same thing. Even as a teen interested in Theology I thought that quite stupid and strange to say. If no division is a function of all being told from on high what to speak the same about with no additional inquiry allowed, what kind of truth is that? It's IMPOSSIBLE for a group to all speak the same thing. People go underground in their beliefs contrary to the group. People sit down on the outside and stand on the inside which is sad actually. I did it. We all did it, until we didn't.

Paul wanted them to all speak the same thing so there be no division among them but then went on to say that for himself however,

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New International Version (NIV)

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

Sounds good but how can you ever trust or know what he actually believes if you do this?

He also said after berating the Galatians for not following HIS view of the Gospel...

1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Which is it Paul? Elsewhere you tried very hard to win their approval and please them where they were and what they were.

Nuff said. It's freakin' 4 in the morning and my thinking of my past will catch up with me at work today.

Anonymous said...

Slick
If you develop a relationship with God, He can give you a better job, and one with prospects for advancement. Of course, you must be willing to work hard.
But God does open doors for people, the equivalent of a passage through the red sea.

Near_Earth_Object said...

Some observations:

1. I am convinced that theistic evolution explains quite effectively what we see in Natural History. And the fact that evolution is true does not mean that the Christian God does not exist.

2. Because evolution is true, we must revise our interpretation of Genesis. And this leads to a revision in how we see the Bible as a whole. See Peter Enns.

3. Young Earth Creationism (the Armstrongist position) is most easily shot down and this is what atheists and agnostics most often focus on.

4. Armstrongists always judge people based on appearance in contravention to what Jesus said. So they are going automatically, before thinking further, identify someone with long hair and a beard as an agent of the Dark Side. In each of the Armstrongist fragment churches, the more you look like the fragment leader, the greater is your credibility. If the guy rebutting Pack's antiquated arguments had looked like Pack, Pack's followers would have been confused and some might have even listened.

5. Dennis Diehl was an Armstrongist minister. In that capacity, he was a support element for Armstrongism. But weren't we all? If you sat in the congregation and did nothing else, you exhibited supportive behavior. We are all culpable. Stand in line.

Anonymous said...

Dennis
You want us to open up about our names and affiliations?? Spoken like a minister. As Sun Tzu in his Art of War points out ' information is ammunition.' Whenever a minister asks nosey questions, he's always looking for a club to use against that member. It's a mistake to answer their personal questions. They shouldn't even be asking. Many members have discovered to their horror that the answers given are spread throughout the church. They feign confidentiality, but are lying. They are lying bastards in this regard.
Confidentiality by psychologists and psychiatrists is protected by law, but minister confidentiality is not.

Asking bloggers names is typical minister non respect for members rights.
I suggest you spend less read reading dissident books condemning the bible, and instead read books dealing with rights.

Donnie said...

It does seem ludicrous to use a guy who is like David Peck to refute David Peck. David Peck is, to put it bluntly, a dipshit. Aron Ra is of the same fabric, a dipshit. Please read this from David Berlinski:

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

Byker Bob said...

Dennis, based on what you shared above, there are those who will say that you had a number of very key reservations and moral compunctions, and therefore were never “all in”. Actually, while that’s allowed in many religions, it is not allowed in Armstrongism, which is one of the reasons it is frequently described as being a mind-control cult. I know that most members resent that description, but it is a truthful one.

BB

Hoss said...

Irrespective of the topic being evolution, Dave put together a very poor argument, which was properly refuted.

Byker Bob said...

To Donnie @9:29. I’m not an atheist. However, you can’t definitively prove a negative. Most non believers don’t say that they have proven that God doesn’t exist. If anything, they state that they lack the compelling evidence which would support the existence of a supreme being. And, they find the personal experiences (testimonies) of individuals (subjective) to be totally unconvincing. They require hard, scientific fact. These are also not predominantly bad or predatory people, any more than any of the rest of us are. Some operate using well-developed moral and ethical codes which rival or excel over those supposedly used by many Christians.

BB

Gerald Bronkar said...

Anon 8:58, you certainly have the right to post anonymously (regrettably, IMO), but if you do, you do not have the right to consider yourself courageous. You poke your head out, snipe at others more brave than yourself, and then run back to the shadows to hide.

To those with all their cherished opinions, why are you afraid to identify yourselves. Oh that's right, you are protecting a family member....bullshit! You are cowardly, and love to slap your opposition in secret. Give me a break. You are gutless.

Dennis Diehl said...

Knowing Aron personally and his personal kindness to others behind the scenes, it does seem to me your judgement is dipshit.

BB. In hindsight, I was in with the basic theology and Jewish church approach but out on prophecy and stuff they seemed make up and change with the winds. I'm a practical thinker and compliance to those who seem important always took second place with me it seems. "I'll rake that under advisement" as my dad often said meaning "no"

Anonymous said...

Where there any good Nazis or any good COG ministurds? I hear Dennis saying he was not really a COG true believer much less responsible for what he stood for as an official rep of the org. It reminds me of the defense the former Nazis used at their trials. HWA and GTA are dead and their fortune has been squandered. But I am all for reparations from the ministurd who taught me the way. Even if I could only get pennies back from Dennis on the thousands of dollars I donated I would feel the symbolic gesture would prove more than the words Dennis uses to back peddle from his role and responsibility in the COG.

Anonymous said...

Gerald
So people who stand up to this evil world, and haven't fallen away like Dennis and yourself, are cowards, gutless, and shouldn't see themselves as courageous.
Hmm, give me a minute to ponder that.

Byker Bob said...

Hey, 1:41, over the years I’ve come to believe that Dennis is and was sincere, because he quite literally put his money where his mouth is, and he has picked up the tab by losing the wages and retirement which he could have continued had he elected to preach either Armstrongism or Tkachism. There is an old biker proverb that you pick up the tab for your lifestyle on your last ride, and I believe that proverb applies to everyone, not just bikers.

Does he have perfect truth or understanding? None of us do, nor will we in this lifetime. Do I agree with him on all topics? No. In fact, hell no! We sometimes argue. That said, I believe him to be sincere, as opposed to being or having been a paid orator or advocate.

BB

blue52 said...

Yes! REPARATIONS! That's it - How about it Dennis?

Byker Bob said...

“Just What Do You Mean, Fallen Away?” I hope you aren’t inSINuating that Armstrongism was “God’s True Church”! The incest back in the ‘40s whored that up! It’s why 1975 and all the various mathematical revisions have failed over the years! 2 bad 4 U!

BB

Anonymous said...

BB
Herb, the physical church and God are not one and the same. God (not Herb) gave Dennis and Gerald the holy spirit. Both have given up their Christian walk. Hence, the lake of fire awaits them both. That's the way it is.

PS Gods true church are those who follow Christ. Twenty three times in the NT Christ said follow me.

A simply reality test is to ask God whether one has, or was given God's holy spirit.

Byker Bob said...

Well, your first sentence is correct. And that is because God had nothing to do with Herbie or the WCG. Therefore, nobody received the Holy Spirit through that path. A false teacher and a false church? It was all fake. You can judge Dennis or Gerald based on your Armstrongism, but you are wrong. I’m not your judge, but perhaps you ought to be examining your own spiritual status, and whether you ever had the Holy Spirit indwelling you!

BB

nck said...

'Well, your first sentence is correct. And that is because God had nothing to do with Herbie or the WCG. "

Do you believe that in order to attain eternal life, or whatever prize, since the NTestament God has installed intermediaries THROUGH whom this state or prize NEEDS to be achieved? Or do you consider ANY man just a man and only "perhaps" a tool in Gods hand, to lead man into Godly things?

Is it impossible to have Christian people (as defined by receivers of Holy Spirit) in lets say Jimmy Swaggarts church or any of the other thousands of christian churches led by lunatics but containing real good people.

nck

Anonymous said...

BB
I remind you that God sits on a great thrown and He can do whatever He pleases. He also states:
Daniel 4:17 "...to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."

For instance God used a evil Balaam to correctly deliver certain prophesy's.
As I said, and which you ignored, check with the holy spirit whether one was given the holy spirit or not.

Anonymous said...

Dennis Diehl said...
GTA chided me in his office when I was 18 for my hair covering my forehead and sent me to the camp...campus barber to get it cut. He said the forehead was the seat of intellect or some such BS. I wish I had asked him if the skull blocked it too?"
I wonder what GTA would have said if you asked, "Why do you shave your face smooth each day to make it look like the face of a woman? Doesn't nature itself tell us that it is a shame for men to have clean shaven faces?"

Anonymous said...

Dennis, did those at HQ know of your misgivings concerning prophecy, BI, etc.? How did you remain in the ministry without being removed? Were there some at HQ who tried to have you removed? Were there some at HQ who were able to protect you? Did some church members snitch on your? I can't imagine RCM and some others tolerating a minister who expressed doubts about some of the unique teachings of WCG. When I graduated from AC in 73 there weren't that many men being hired into the Work (thank God). I can only imagine that there were some "qualified" graduates who would have loved to have had your job, yet you survived, in spite of your beliefs (or disbeliefs).

nck said...

"I can't imagine RCM and some others tolerating a minister who expressed doubts about some of the unique teachings of WCG."


Doubting Thomasses would pose a problem in the long term.

The anti people on this blog never understood Armstrongism and probably never read what HWA said regarding prophecy. In BI & US in P he said that propecy was intended to draw people to God. But that it was of no consequence regarding the plan of God or eternal life. All Armstrongite prophecy would transpire BEFORE eternal life anyway. No one ever claimed to know when things would happen except our area director who joked that it was all in HWA's blue book hidden in the safe in Pasadena.

I do agree that by know even the "it won't be long now, or "within 20 years" could be interpreted as a transpired date. That is true. But AS THE BIBLE SAID, NO ONE NOWS THE TIME and Hw confirmed this his entire life in most of his writing including his "summary accomplishment MOA, in which he states that there are no Prophets in NT times and he certainly wasn't one.

Most false assumptions were rooted in what people WANTED to hear and I agree many ministers fed that since THEY wanted to be in the know. But the biblical texts were never hidden about NOT knowing but to be ready WHEN necessary.

I don't think our director got reported for his "blue book" joke. Most people in WCG knew what I just wrote.

nck

nck said...

My history teacher had misgivings about my "prophecying" that the Berlin Wall would come down and ridiculed me in class for those outlandish statements that were even forbidden in the constitution of the DDR.

Today the Wall is as long down as it was up. As they say, "A prophet is never understoond in his generation." :-) Joke! Did this esoteric knowledge win me eternal life. Don;t think so.

Some in church probably thought it that knowledge would bring them eternal life. I guess we were gnostics then.

nck

Dennis Diehl said...

559
Several factors
Experiencing the Majoring in the minors took a few years.

The 74 east coast/GTA thing was on and I got fired for three days being Chicago

New scandals every 18 mos kept them busy

I was parroting alone for years

I just quietly didn't promote what I did not like or believe

I was out of the loop and growing every church I Pastored by living, helping, encouraging, supporting members in real life not speculative nonsense.

They liked me until they didn't and the Dark Night of the Soul" took over for a time
And other stuff

I

Dennis Diehl said...

533
What I found out later was his whole screaming during a sermon at me for the look on my face etc was his fear I was dating the same girl he was. Should have asked him that. But then would have had a fatal on campus accident

Dennis Diehl said...

Anon 141
I believed the core teachings of WCG. It was the peripheral ones if prophecy in our time, healing, d and r, HWA /Waterhouse, make up, how not if to keep Sabbath etc I minimized or did not invest in or teach. There were 40 of my extended family in WCG giving the church support until they didn't too.

I can't help the affections and path if my youth and ministerial experience. Once enlightened by the process I can,however, help what happens next. I assume you had your own sincerely convinced for a time moments

Dennis Diehl said...

And too....those who feel the need to justify my life, choices, WCG experience etc, how about sharing your own so we can probably see we had much in common in original belief in the WCG perspective. Or did you go along to get along only? Doubt that..

Anonymous said...

Nck
It's disappointing that you have become a Herb whitewasher. You are like a holocaust deniers. I read the church literature prior to 1975 and it did mis lead most readers into believing that date.
Herb used terror religion to intimidate the members into tolerating church tyranny and abuse.

Donnie said...

To Byker Bob

I'm sorry, I wouldn't want to split hairs with you, but I do think my observation is correct. I think that Dr. Berlinski's observation is correct too. I'll remind you to what that is, "Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on." I am familiar with the rhetoric of Mr. Ra. Mr. Ra contends that evolution provides evidence there is no God. He is as narrow-minded as most Christian "fundamentalists" that I have met. The error of both is that they assume the Bible is a science book and/or a history book. Its primary function is neither of those. To push my point, the modern scientific methodology has only been around for 500 years or so.

Addressing your remarks directly, you state confidentially that we can't prove a negative. I suggest you think of it this way: We don't live our lives based on proof. We live our lives based on evidence. If it was proof that we needed, then we would never know much at all. You can't even prove you exist. I "prove" negatives all the time in my life. I'm sure you do too. I can prove there are no midgets in the US Congress. I can even prove there are no teapots orbiting the sun. You're "can't prove a negative" is left over rhetoric from David Hume. Which is an old-fashioned way of defending atheism that modern atheistic philosophers don't use.

You are correct, most non-believers say they have no compelling evidence. The truth is: there is no evidence they will accept. There is no evidence that Mr. Ra would accept. There are more philosophical arguments that are coherent that you can shake your fist at. Scientific evidence abounds as the scientist race to the top of the mountain that the philosophers have been sitting on for thousands of years. Historians have to rely on the denial of metaphysics and the incoherence of scientism to deny the Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

You make a good observation. I also find testimonies and the such unreliable as evidence. I do, however, find my own experience reliable and my rational mind. Further, if "they require hard, scientific fact", THEY will be lost into oblivion. Science cannot produce "hard facts" for anything that lies outside the physical realm. And there lies the problem. The metaphysical is incomprehensible to them. Yet, they do not understand that science has to presuppose metaphysics to even work. I'm sure you must see the cognitive dissonance here.

Whether or not these atheists including Mr. Ra are "good" and that their moral character may be superior to a Christian is irrelevant to the reality. If there is no God, there can be no objective Good or objective Evil. Any claim to morality becomes lost in a sea of subjectivity and opinion where only the POWERFUL decide who is good and who is bad. We have seen how that has worked out in the past.

Byker Bob said...

I’ve come to realize that when confronted with the realities of our former church scam, there are always going to be those who give out Balaam passes, or King David passes, and attempt to spiritualize the errors away. Fact is, the pass-givers are the ones who ignore all the little nagging internal defense-mechanisms that tell them something was very wrong with Armstrongism. It doesn’t do any good to address and point out the error in what some of the naive ones say, because two or three threads later, they repeat almost verbatim what they said earlier, without even commenting on the rebuttal. That’s because they’re only repeating their church programming.

Oh well. I suppose there are people out there who still admire Richard Nixon, and think he was unfairly hounded from office by hippies, womens libbers, and the anti-war movement.

BB

Anonymous said...

Donnie
I disagree with you on several points. Humans have God plane minds, so the scientific method is as old as mankind. It's even articulated with the 'you shall know them by their fruits,' thingy. That is, evidence plus reason is the scientific method.
Contrary to what you claim, there is a object good and evil independent of God. If life is the ultimate value, the good is that which enables humans to sustain their lives and prosper. The evil is the opposite. Human have discerned the gardening rules which enables successful gardening, likewise the laws of human flourishing are discernible as well. Pharisees deny this since they are masters at rigging the moral and religious rules. They do not want their victims/potential victims to have the ability to evaluate their self serving unjust rules. We do not need a class of Herb ministers to enlighten us about moral truths.
Science presupposes metaphysics? Well, science is meaningless without a reality with it's laws of physics and chemistry. But these can be discerned using observation and reason.

nck said...

10:04

"Nck
It's disappointing that you have become a Herb whitewasher. You are like a holocaust deniers. I read the church literature prior to 1975 and it did mis lead most readers into believing that date.
Herb used terror religion to intimidate the members into tolerating church tyranny and abuse."


I am sorry to have disappointed you. I heard it was pretty bad in the sixties. (especially the healing doctrine and divorce and remarriage that was like the catholic one but exercised to its logical conclusion unlike the catholic one)


Confronted with the extreme and many lies on this blog I have tended to pose more radical comments. (until someone like you arises) It can indeed be said that people were misled by the literature. HOWEVER contrary to popular opinion on this blog NOT EVEN in the book 1975 in prophecy it is stated that Christ would return in 1975. Despite the calculations AC students were occupied with in pure speculation. And I am not afraid to call it speculation since in front of ALL the noses of the students it said that "THE BIBLE is the foundation of all knowledge" And in the bible it said that NO ONE knows the time etc etc etc etc..

So misleading perhaps. But people should take responsibilty when engaging in speculative activities. It's not that I am a holocaust denier. People try to shift blame by having put a bet on let's say a date like 1975.

nck


Anonymous said...

BB
Yes Bob, there are many of us who admire Richard Nixon for saying no to all the anti family legislation. Using the Bill Clinton standard ('I did not have sex with that woman'), he was unfairly chased out of office by the treasonous media.

nck said...

Btw With lies on this blog I mean a lot of the comments and interpretation by the commenters.

Not so much the satirical and often confrontational original blog postings.

nck

nck said...

Donnie,

What a nice and compelling way of using language you have.
I wasn't going to react since everyone is entitled to share their own opinions.

However you at least incorrect on several points.

If I had seen or experienced ANYTHING metaphysical, my world would be rocked beyond comprehension. But unfortunately I have NEVER experienced anything that could not be explained scientifically. The testimony of Catholic Saints from the Middle Ages is not enough for me. But I would have liked to see ANY of the thousands of miracles ascribed to the Catholic Saints. Or see a mice with a cats head. Or anything out of the ordinary.

What ticked me of was your remark that there can be no morality without a "Christian God" arbitrator. As if humanity had not managed to survive for 100.000 years before the NT.

The Romans build a great society. Greek philosophy formulated many forms of morality. Most of the boundaries of said morality were set in "the balance between the individual and the group" (or greater society. And the "golden rule". Other forms of "morality" had been found out thousands of years ago. That is marying for prolonged time within ones group or marying ones sister would produce seriously handicapped off spring.

How do you reckon people found out about poisonous mushrooms? Because it was delivered to them through Adam and Eve? NO of course not. People died first by eating them. And the children made sure to pass that scientific knowledge on through their empirical testing of the mushroom. Hence the first scientist.

Later religionists wrote a book about how bad it was to marry ones sister and that it would constitute sin and to abstain from certain foods. But unfortunately there are the literalists who even in that book can see or proof that some in the past did marry their sister, because of a literal interpretation of Genesis. A practice that even people in the remotest valleys of this world knew was TABOO and would cause curses, sickness, disease and mental illness upon their society.


nck

Anonymous said...

Donnie,
You said, "You're 'can't prove a negative' is left over rhetoric from David Hume."

That thingy has certainly been said by countless others. May I suggest that it's origin was not from Hume, and may have been noticed outside of a 'COG-centric' environment?

You also said, "I do, however, find my own experience reliable and my rational mind."

What does that mean? It's not even a complete sentence.

Anonymous said...

I thought the issue of whether HWA "set dates" had been resolved by now, with all of the evidence (from HWA's own writing) that's been provided here and elsewhere.

nck said...

10:22

Could you name a date please?
I would look up my ancient diaries and investigate whyvI failed to have my suitcases packed.

One date please would be most helpful to see where I failed.

Thsnk you for settling the issue. Most helpfull.

Nck

Donnie said...

To Anonymous,

I appreciate you taking the time to remark on my comments. Being that you have taking that time, I'll respond in kind.

You said, "Humans have God plane minds, so the scientific method is as old as mankind." and "...evidence plus reason is the scientific method."

I say, I think in principle you are correct. Humans have been using evidence and reason for a very long time. A person could even argue that the principals of the scientific method is laid out right there in Genesis. I've heard the argument and it does seem reasonable to me. However, the codified scientific method used by scientists to ensure reliability and repeatability hasn't been around that long. The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".

Your remarks on morality being objective without God, well, I think your theory falls a bit short and seems to be circular. Why is life the ultimate value? My life, your life or everyone's life? Why isn't dead just as good? Why is life even good. Why is it good to prosper? How do you measure prosperity or flourishing? My definition or your definition or they guy with the most guns? Who's flourishing are we talking about? Are we talking about the rich landowner with all the slaves? He seemed to flourish to me. Sam Harris makes the same argument. It was circular then and it is now. Harris even deems it just to kill people for what they believe. I can objectively say, it's wrong to kill people for what they believe.

You said, "We do not need a class of Herb ministers to enlighten us about moral truths."

I say, you are dead on in regard to this. St. Paul would say something like, it's written on your heart.

You say, "Science presupposes metaphysics? Well, science is meaningless without a reality with it's laws of physics and chemistry. But these can be discerned using observation and reason."

It seems that maybe you misunderstand the word metaphysics. And yes science does presuppose laws of physics and chemistry. I didn't submit that as evidence, but I will take it. Science also presupposes laws of logic and morality which are by my estimation metaphysical. I will go with that idea until you can emperically justify logic and morality with the scientific method.

Donnie said...

To nck,

Thanks for taking the time to try to help me out. (no sarcasm intended)

I would certainly agree with you on the point that the testimony of Catholic Saints from the Middles ages is "not enough". By my estimation, only a fool would think that. Whether or not you have experienced anything metaphysical or not, I couldn't say. I'll trust your experience. However, your experience doesn't do anything for the fact that the metaphysical is real or not. Here are just a few things that are metaphysical or things that the scientific method cannot prove or disprove (if you need more, just ask or use Google):

--Logical Truths: These must be accepted as foundational presuppositions in order for us to engage in any scientific study, so we clearly can’t use science to prove logic.
--Moral and Ethical Truths: Science cannot tell us what is morally virtuous or vile.
--Scientific Truths: Science itself is based on assumptions that can’t be proven scientifically. Nature is orderly it follows regularity, pattern, and structure–these must be true for any science to work at all.
--Mathematical Truths: The Pythagorean theorem and other principles help us to understand science. These are mathematical laws that we cannot know will work using science alone.
--Literary Truths. We cannot know by science alone that Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Fin was a more interesting character than Homer’s Agamemnon. Literary truths require analysis, but not the same kind that rocks, organs or comets do.

You said, "What ticked me of was your remark that there can be no morality without a "Christian God" arbitrator. As if humanity had not managed to survive for 100.000 years before the NT."

I think you missed my point. I think I said, "If there is no God, there can be no objective Good or objective Evil." Maybe, you misunderstand that Christians (not including Armstrongites in this definition) believe that God created the universe and all things in it. Goodness is a property of God and flows directly from him. Morality itself comes from his nature. With this idea in mind, you should be able to quickly understand that morality has been around quite a long time and well before the NT. The NT helps us understand this morality and specifically the Logos. I wouldn't think for a second that a person needs the NT to be moral. All humans are created in the image of God with access to the moral fabric of God.

So nck, you did a nice little take on how it came to be that morality came about by science (or as I might put it, reason). Am I right to assume that you think the moral law against murder is equivalent to the knowledge of poison mushrooms? So, what if this certain group of people found it profitable to their livelihood to enslave another group of people? They passed that knowledge on down to their children and their children, etc. Does that mean that it must be good to enslave people?

As I have stated in another response, I think your argument is circular. I'm also wondering if you can prove your argument with the scientific method?

Anonymous said...

Here we go again with Nck in lawyer rather than real world mode.
The world is not a courtroom Nck.

Donnie said...

To Anonymous,

You said, "That thingy has certainly been said by countless others," in regard to my comment about David Hume. I'd say you would be correct. Jean-Paul Sartre of more recent times made the "teapot" argument. I would contend that no matter the origin, it is still a useless argument to discern reality.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand my sentence. All those English classes failed me. If I had a better editor, he would have pointed that out and I would have rewritten it. I'll rewrite that sentence now so that you may better understand my intent:

"I do, however, find my own experience and rational mind reliable."

I hope that helps you

Donnie said...

Please allow me to make a correction. I claimed that Jean-Paul Sartre made the "teapot argument". I meant to type Bertrand Russell who in reality made that argument. My apologies for the miss information.

I made that claim in this text:

"You said, "That thingy has certainly been said by countless others," in regard to my comment about David Hume. I'd say you would be correct. Jean-Paul Sartre of more recent times made the "teapot" argument. I would contend that no matter the origin, it is still a useless argument to discern reality."

nck said...

Donnie.

Again very eloquent. And indeed you take the time to explain. And I used a little sarcasm ti counter. I will keep it light since you command respect.

We agreed that "morality" existed before time.

One person is making a point about nck the lawyer. That person is correct.
In law school I learned that humans quickly found out that murdering at random would not help the species survive.
Only later people developed concepts, philosophies and codes to enshrine ideas like ."murder does harm."

Slavery is widely accepted in one of those code books. Like having multiple wives.

During the times of the founding fathers humanity developed ideas on "natural law". They had seem the problems with "one source morality".

But hey. I think you are an advocate of good things. I m only raising points to ponder not to attack.

Nck

nck said...

"Am I right to assume that you think the moral law against murder is equivalent to the knowledge of poison mushrooms? So, what if this certain group of people found it profitable to their livelihood to enslave another group of people? They passed that knowledge on down to their children and their children, etc. Does that mean that it must be good to enslave people?"


You are raising very good questions I might add.
We are getting into the realm of Kant and other philosophers.

I was reading the Danish judgement on wearing Burka in the public realm.
They considered it "incompatible" with Danish society. (and therefore wrong)

So this society has imposed their values to protect the whole and protect the Danish species.

Other societies might judge that such ruling would not work in their society because of the heat of the sun or whatever heated hormones.

My point is that probably Maria mother of Jesus or most picture of the Middle Ages show women with veils to appear modest in the public realm. Or at least more covered than modern women.
The same goes for drinking age. In the European SEP camps, some Apple Cider was allowed for 18 year olds, while the American campers AND even staff had to wait until 21. Therefore respecting the rules of their respective societies.

The difficulty probably lies in the definition of WHO defines what is " modest dress" for a woman, or what a legal drinking age or age for having intimate relations should be.


Ah well morality. A topic that could be discussed for thousands of years.
Good to have thinkers like you on the topic.

nck








Anonymous said...

Donnie
You state why isn't dead as good as life. The answer is that it is axiomatic, the self evident. There is no reasoning or circular reasoning that life is precious. You use this ploy often.
God does define reality, but it is discernable through the scientific method which you keep ignoring. What America's founding feathers tried to articulate (but did so imperfectly) is that everyone has a right to life. This makes slavery immoral, and long term there are no winners. God has defined reality as such.
Your writings permeate with a 'we can't be sure of much anything.'
I disagree, and is not the point of view of a moral person or genuine Christian.
You are are secular version of Dennis the spiritual menace.

nck said...

" I'm also wondering if you can prove your argument with the scientific method?"

Well Donnie.
The more I think of it the more I find a kindred spirit in february 6.

The scientific method through empirical testing.
The sequence in the four horseman is quite scientific. One follows the other. False ideas, war, disease, death.
To kill many people at random does not bring blessings. The biblical writers had not found that out yet as it seems they propagate killing many other people that inhabited their promised land.
Only literalists can see the "rationality" or "morality" of killing the inhabitants of the promised land. Of course this was repeated later in protestant america, south africa and actually all over the world, despite the overwhelming evidence that killing people does not bring long term rewards.

ALTHOUGH.
The question is highly relevant as Artificial Intelligence is poised to take over the world. (in 20 years).

What if the computers by measuring the ozone layer, the amount of animal species dying out, or other poluting factors, or perhaps decisions on what constitutes "the quality of good and moral living", decide by the All knowing and All wise algorythm to wipe out 83% of humanity by releasing virus or other.

Would that than be a "moral decision" by the machines and algorythms, in order to SAVE mankind, the earth and ALL life from annihilation?

These are actually real questions asked by scientists today working on data connectivity and AI. Our dependency on the grid is growing rapidly. And the computer might decide to shut several off the grid in the future. Unimaginable? Well, look at seventies movies. When the man with the axe is following the damsel I find myself screaming, Use your cell phone!!!!! But while screaming of course I am reasoning from the perspective as a particle of modern day grid. As others did in the past and AI will decide in the future on our propensity to go on as we do.

nck


nck said...

Donnie

I apologize to the readers for posting this many times. But I just read your remark on slavery.

I am sure you know that one of the ways slavery of black people and the killing of jews was justified was to dehumanize them or categorize them as sub human.

My point.
It seems mankind is pretty much able to comprehend that it is self evident to treat humans according to a version of the golden rule.

Why otherwise would atrocities like that need justification if there wasn t an innate justice or natural law or logic, condemning the treatment of people considered equals through their humanity.

So yes the mushroom morality equals the prohobition of murder. Unless you take the position that it is ok to euthanize your mother stricken by terminal cancer to ensure a more humane ending of her life.

Now what is moral. To allow euthanasia in for those with terminal cancer. Perhaps extend it for lonely elderly who are waiting to end it all. Or would it be moral to let nature have its course and have many people die too old and afflicted in gruesome ways?

Not being argumentative. Just raising the bar a little for philosophical reasons. Only respond if you are triggered I dont want to waste your time.

Nck

Donnie said...

To nck,

I read through your comments. There may be too much for me to respond to in the amount of time that I have. I can assure you that I am not responding because I am "triggered" (whatever that might mean). I will respond to you on the value of your comments and in the interest of discussing important matters such as morality and God.

I have read quite a bit in my life and have thought many things through to my satisfaction. I am certainly interested in others' perspective. On the very question of morality, I have read Sam Harris, Noam Chomsky, and others who hold the view that objective morality can come about by evolution and can be explained by science, etc. It seems to me that their arguments beg the question, just as your has.

It seems that you may have the misunderstanding that I think ALL morality is objective. Let me be clear, some morality is subjective. You gave an example of a Dutch court banning burkas. I'll give you another example, the speed limit posted on the street you live on. Clearly, those rules of behavior (morality) are created by men to serve the interest of certain people. What we are talking about are objective standards and duties that remain true across humanity. For instance, it is always evil to torture toddlers for fun.

I'll try to respond directly to some of your specific comments the best I can.

You said, "It seems mankind is pretty much able to comprehend that it is self-evident to treat humans according to a version of the golden rule."

I say, certainly, mankind can comprehend that they should treat humans according to the golden rule. The real question is why is the "golden rule" a standard to goodness? It in itself has no value. You must give value to humans first. It's self-evident that human has value? It seems self-evident to me that they have plenty of value if I can sell them on the slave market. The "golden rule" is good because it allows people to flourish? Now, we are back to begging the question again. I'm sure you see the vicious cycle.

You said, "So yes the mushroom morality equals the prohobition of murder."

I say, and maybe it does, but the real question is why would we pass the knowledge down at all. I would argue that it is not because the mushroom is poison, but because human life is valuable.

You said, "Now what is moral. To allow euthanasia in for those with terminal cancer. Perhaps extend it for lonely elderly who are waiting to end it all. Or would it be moral to let nature have its course and have many people die too old and afflicted in gruesome ways?"

I wouldn't want to argue the tinsel of objective morality such as you pose here. This is the specific reason the term "objective" is used and not the word "absolute". The positions of these statements would be measured with other values not just the value of murder. Whatever the argument would be, it would probably not be the negation of objective morality requires God.

AI? It seems that something outside the AI would program parameters. Frankly, I am not interested in discussing such sci-fi subjects. Unless, you can show me a model that proves objective morality can be obtained by evolution alone.

I'll leave you with one final thought. Here is the basic scientific method:


1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.

Donnie said...

To Anonymous,

I'm not quite sure where to even begin to reply to you, except to say, you seem to have misunderstood most of my points. I'll mark that up to my poor writing. Sorry to have created confusion for you.

I'll quickly try to address a few of your claims.

You said, "The answer is that it is axiomatic, the self-evident."

My argument isn't that it is not axiomatic. My argument is that humans are valuable because we are created in the image of God.

You said, "There is no reasoning or circular reasoning that life is precious."

My argument is that humans are good because they are precious is circular. My position is that humans are precious because they were created in the image of God. Which is not circular.

You said, "God does define reality, but it is discernable through the scientific method which you keep ignoring."

I made no such argument that aspects of reality aren't discernible with the scientific method. My argument is that certain aspects of reality (metaphysical) cannot be discerned with the scientific method. I even named a few. The physical world most certainly can.

You said, "What America's founding feathers tried to articulate (but did so imperfectly) is that everyone has a right to life. This makes slavery immoral, and long term there are no winners. God has defined reality as such."

My argument is that slavery is wrong objectively and God is standard of that objectivity.

You said, "Your writings permeate with a 'we can't be sure of much anything.'".

My point is that we can't be sure of much of anything if we rely on mathematical proofs. Evidence is usually what we need, not a proof.

You said, "You are are secular version of Dennis the spiritual menace."

I don't know who this is. My arguments are pro theism not pro secularism.

nck said...

1)

Donnie,

I do enjoy this "Aristotelan debate". And I apreciate your manner of reasoning. Like you I have limited time. So I do not expect you to adress all points raised by me. They are merely questions and amount to rambling since it has been awhile that I could pass a systematic exam on chomsky et all.

I have no wish to change your belief that worth is attributed by God.

I have taken your advice on empirical testing. And rammed my car into a kindergarten yesterday. Started throwing marbles at the toddlers, hit them with pencils over the head and pinched them in the nose.

Non of the staff, parents and police used the argument later on that I was infringing upon their God attributed value. Most parents shouted that I endangered THEIR hopes and future, most toddlers cried and responded negatively because I attacked their intrinsic value, the police said that I should be put away for "being a menace to society", and the law stated that I will be punished for having infringed upon the intrinsic right of individuals and society as a whole. (basis for penal system)

nck said...

2)

I do get "the organizing principe" of traffic rules. Most countries drive right. British organized left. Nothing moral about that. UNTIL one decides to drive right in England and left in America. Then you display immoral behavior by endangering people living according to that specific ordering principle. The same goes for the DANISH burka ban. In Victorian times the showing of an ankle would be extremely arousing and tea tables and chairs had their legs covered for this very purpose.

On slavery I said specifically that it was wrong NOT because God condemned it and told Abraham to write a book condemning the practice. Slavery is wrong because PEOPLE should be treated as equals. That is the very reason I cited that as soon mankind enters into atrocious behavior it immediately starts rationalizing by DE HUMANIZING its victims. Because it is self evident that you cannot not allow such behavior to other humans but perhaps by classifying others as sub human or half animal rationalizes it.

I guess the intrinsic value of an educated person in the western world in money terms is 150.000 dollars. And more if you teeth are covered in gold. Of course we are talking about "intrinsic or axiomatic' value.

On AI. I do not expect you to be an expert in this field. Therefore it is ok to have misunderstood. The entire premise of AI is that at first the machines are programmed and soon after THEY START LEARNING THEMSELVES. Now with big data these machines within a short time span have the ability to learn faster, proces faster and make FAR MORE better informed decisions than man can ever be able to.

(I am not saying that the machines are moral, I am saying that they sure will be better informed.) As a matter of fact. Figuratively speaking at Facebook they are able to predict with a reasonable accuracy what you are going to do today, when and how and what you would like to eat tomorrow. At the same time YOU might still be thinking about planning your day and talk to your wife about tomorrow's dinner.

My point was that the "self learning" machines might just come to the conclusion that mankind is destroying its habitat and therefore must be reduced or eliminated, which would be the rational thing to do through the scientific method.

We must therefore understand the self evident nature of our own destruction by for instance not being a good steward of nature's resources.

Therefore I find plenty of topics and levels of agreement between us and for now have no desire to change your opinion but rather learn from it.

And not turn the other way when intrinsic or attributed value seems to prohibit the torture of todlers, but 300 million people turn the other way when Gulfstream jet fly to Poland and Morocan prisons to extract information from the "orange suits".

A moral life of modesty, discipline based on fact was propagated by the stoics as I recall. The christians brought some discipline and order to the Swedes in 900 AD. There the twain shall meet.

nck

nck said...

You might have understood that after my emperical research "society" has granted me more time to think this issue over. After re reading my 11:51 I must first apologize for some atrocious mistakes in typing and grammar. This happens when typing with one finger extremely fast. But you do not seem to be the type of person pointing out grammatical mistakes in order to mislead on my general thesis.

It just occured to me that their are many ways to attribute "value" to annimate or inanimate objects.

One of the most often used attribution model is the "scarcity model."
Therefore diamonds are attributed more value than plastic. While in reality they are just compressed C. To some islanders some colored shell or stones with holes are worth more than 15 camels to buy a wife in another society.

My point.
I guess the value atributed to those toddlers could perhaps be assigned to the scarcity of the specimens. Or perhaps the effort that goes into keeping them going. (takes longest of all primates) My argument in court will be: "Oh you people get a life, make another one, its fun too." While my lawyers have adviced me to not question the "scarcity model" in court. The parents will as it seems argue the uniqueness of availability of said toddlers, as it seems.

In the past or today in Africa, it seems the scarcity of chances of survival for toddlers were very much lower than today. It could be argued that the attributed value to those toddlers at that time would be significantly higher since their survival rate was scarcer.

Judging from my ancient family tree it seems they were valued lower since reproduction rate was extreme. It seems that people have a way of coping. On the other hand I would readily accept that in the past RELIGION attributed a higher value to those toddlers than my rational assumption deriving from scarcity. Relgion contributed some mighty valuable stories about little angels in heaven. Now that I call value attribution. That is also exactly the reason why I should respect your viewpoint as long as the exchange is civil.

It seems that the code book that starts the story with 2 people attributes extreme value to those humanoids, living in perfect conditions. The value of that species greatly diminishes when they increased into a multitude and could be whiped out by a flood at the whim of emotion. The God from whom value seemingly was attributed later felt ill about what happened and send a rainbow to remind himself of his foul deed. But the supposed value flowing from that creator had not stopped him to withdraw that value at a whim.


Which would have been different if that God had to abide by the rule of law attributing intrinsic value to ALL humanoids and remind him that those evil clay puppets were his image (gone berzerk perhaps, but his image nonetheless.

nck









nck said...

Oh man Sorry,

Socratic Dialogue I meant of course,
not Aristotelan. I'm sorry I'm occupied with listening to the sound of QE unwind in the distance so the dialogue is a nice distraction.

nck

Donnie said...

To nck,

You have far more endurance than I have. I'll make some brief comments and leave you to your own devices. It has become a bit of a burden to me to go around and around, but I do want to be respectful of your thoughts. It seems to me that you have yet to show error in my thinking while continuing to beg the question and engage in circular reasoning. I am not trying to be hurtful or discourage you from thinking. I am instead encouraging you to think more carefully. It is with courage that you and I chose to think at all these days with absurdity and incoherence being shoved down our throats (ie David Peck and Aron Ra).

First a couple of definitions.

begging the question: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.
circular reasoning: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.
intrinsic: belonging to a thing by its very nature
axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true

Empirically, your science experiment would only net you these results:

-- the physical damage your weapons caused (dead and hurt kids)
-- people where upset

Cause and effect. Your experiment cannot determine the value of the kids nor can in explain why people were upset. You would then need to use philosophy or another methodology to determine the answer to other questions. I'm sure you see the absurdity of your proposition.

You said, "On slavery, I said specifically that it was wrong NOT because God condemned it and told Abraham to write a book condemning the practice. Slavery is wrong because PEOPLE should be treated as equals."

As far as I know, Abraham never wrote a book. I've also never claimed that slavery is bad because it was written in a book. You make a good point that slavery is wrong because people SHOULD be treated as equals. I would agree. The difference in my opinion and yours is that I can justify SHOULD and you cannot. My justification is that people are created in the image of God by God who is holy and rational. You say it because of intrinsic value or it's axiomatic. I say that is not justification at all, but a nice little escape hatch. Stalin and Hitler certainly had a different opinion on what the intrinsic and axiomatic value of humans are.

I would certainly agree that some people have justified slavery and genocide by defining people groups as Sub Human. Stalin would consider anyone that didn't agree with him as a sub human. Hitler considered anyone that was not German a sub human. Arab slavers considered black people sub human, etc, etc.

One of the problems of stoicism is that the philosophy has no ultimate justification and can't deliver on its promises. Non-attachment doesn't lead to happiness, it leads more likely to nihilism.

I'll leave it there for you. Godspeed.

nck said...

You have certainly shown respect to my engaging in converation. I apreciate the time you took.
I will have to rehash some of the theory on circular reasoning. Any further thoughts of mine could, at this stage, indeed be interpreted as an attempt on my part to show error in your way of thinking. It is not. To me this was an exchange of opinion and certainly not personal.

Just a few more thought from my part to blow of steam for personal reasons.

a) You misunderstood the sub human definition. By you definition Stalin and the traders only REDUCED the value of real humans. I was speaking about (false) declarations and definitions that the victims were not human at all and CRUCIAL to understand the intrinsic value point I was making. That is quite a difference you made to change my point, I have reasons to think you did not do that on purpose.

"Your experiment cannot determine the value of the kids nor can in explain why people were upset."

-The average net value of a 16 year old kid in the western world is about 150.000 dollars.
-None of the parents called me out on the money value
-None of the parents bothered not to come to school since the value of their kids had expired. Just continue working and make another kid would be the rational thing.

So many people attributed value to the little humans for a lot of reasons.
The fact that the STATE troopers got involved suggests to me that the STATE or Larger Society also attributes value to these little humans for extra reasons that go beyond that of the parents interest. Which would be ridiculous if we take into account how many of these cretins are around and how easy and fun it is to make new ones.

I'll leave you with these thoughts, while I will be contemplating the virtues of circular reasoning.

Thank's again for the food for thought.

nck






Donnie said...

To nck,

Briefly, I will entertain a few of your remarks for clarification.

Your Comment:

"You misunderstood the sub human definition. By you definition Stalin and the traders only REDUCED the value of real humans. I was speaking about (false) declarations and definitions that the victims were not human at all and CRUCIAL to understand the intrinsic value point I was making. That is quite a difference you made to change my point, I have reasons to think you did not do that on purpose."

Maybe I am not that smart. What is your conclusion if your statement is true? And how is that different than Stalin and Hitler concidering some people sub human?

Your comment:
"So many people attributed value to the little humans for a lot of reasons.
The fact that the STATE troopers got involved suggests to me that the STATE or Larger Society also attributes value to these little humans for extra reasons that go beyond that of the parents interest. Which would be ridiculous if we take into account how many of these cretins are around and how easy and fun it is to make new ones."

So what is your conclusion? Morality is subjective? Morality is objective but the standard is not God? Please help me understand what you are trying to say?

Thanks for entertaining my questions.

nck said...

If morality were objective than every person of our species would share the same moral values.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-objective-morality-and-subjective-morality

So I said that people long ago came to some sort if definition of the golden rule as a working principle.

The abuse of people as slaves is only a "reduction" of the quality of human life. Just like many ordinary jobs today are a dread and do not elevate people to their full potential.

However taken to the extreme, I noticed that people usually only engage in genocidal behavior AFTER they have categorized groups as NON human. This is another proof that humans intrinsically know that they should not treat equals that way. Because they can only engage into atrocity after they stripped the other of humanhood.

This is quite different from Stalin or the traders you mentioned who are just attributing financial value to workers. It is different from and specific to genocidal cases stripping equality in order to be able to break the ancient golden rule and maintain a personal sense of morality. Like the German camp commandants with extremely nice families living next to the camp, or southern racism that went beyond the money value of their property.

Now your second question.

I stated that I am okay with your belief in God. You come across as a moral person, who endeavors to do best.

However, watching the opening ceremony of the olympic games today I was struck with the morality and success of the people following the way of balance and dao. I have no problem with them either.

Now there lies the difference with many believing in morality being attributed from a magical source who have in the past made all effort to brandish moral people like the south koreans as pagans worthy of death through a narrow and highly subjective morality deducted from their magical books of codification that contradicts their subjective morality.

As you said yourself. Abraham did not write a book against atrocities. Of course not. He owned slaves. Had several wives at the same time and did many unacceptable things inspired by the magical morality of a God. I dont care about the goat. Even the attempt of murdering his son was by all standards atrocious. It is not even a lesson or inspiring and the state troopers would have shot him first.

Abraham should have known that if he understood what I wrote of the cuff, since it has been decades after I studied this topic. But No, Abraham decided to follow a godly standard or the voices in his head. At least David knew he was wrong.

I m glad the founding fathers according to the philosophy of the day did away with all this nonsense after the example of the french who ended the political power of the priests first.

Instead they set up a temporary new order that indeed leaves room and respect for believers who deserve it but have on their unstoppable arrogance interpreted that freedom as if the founding fathers had based that order on christian philosophy. That is a grotesque and dangerous falsification of reality. Driving left or right who cares. But driving right in england is murderous and immoral and stealing from peoples "inalienable rights" for the very reason that they are equal to ourselves, they are OUR image.


Nck

nck said...

I just posted a lengthy posting.

Then it occured to me that in my career I have seen many superior products fail because customers were buying the inferior product. So what is a company if it cannot convince its customers or at worst has no customers at all. So whatever flows from the company must be in harmony, balance and symbiosis with the customer. What is an opera singer without listeners. What is a God with followers confused about his communication (style).

Nck

Donnie said...

Part 1:

To nck,

I'll start off with part of my original quote:
"Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close." ― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

It does seem that your definition and my definition of words and concepts is different. For instance, you used the phrase "virtue of circular reasoning". I would say that circular reasoning is a logical fallacy and by using it, we can't get to rational truth. Maybe, you think it gives you the answer you want, and maybe it does, but it precludes you from the actual truth. If you are not a truth seeker, then maybe that is ok.

It seems that you and I have different definitions of "objective morality". If you agree with the way it was defined in the Quora article, then you only have half of it. I suspect that definition is used to allow an escape hatch. Objective morality is independent of the observer, however, the second qualification is unneeded and misleading, "Described in such a way that all observers agree." It would be wrong to say that objective moral only exists if all the observers agree with it. That would beg the question. I've heard of plenty of people that might not agree that it is wrong to rape young girls, ie, Mohammad and Herbert W. Armstrong. While they may not have thought it wrong doesn't negate the fact that it is wrong.

As I have already said, not all morality is objective. Speed limits, codes of manners, etc. Some morality is objective such as murder, rape, stealing, lying, etc. I'm sure you can tell the difference.

Donnie said...

Part Two:

I read through some of the Quora topics that you posted. The first article triumphantly uses circular reasoning to champion its conclusion. In the second article, it seems to me that the writer doesn't understand what the word "objective" means. At least, he uses it in a way to shoehorn his presuppositions. Absurdity.

It seems to me that some of these same tactics were used by HWA to intellectually trick his followers into believing what he was saying to be the truth. Off the top of my head in his "God Family" doctrine, he has to change the actual meaning of the word Elohim and ignore the principle that God is immutable. Once, he gets that out of the way it's easy for people to believe that if they keep the sabbath and the holy days, they will become part of God. I'm sure you see my point. (FYI. I have never been a member of COG or any related organization. I am a polemicist against "Christian cults" and these days, it seems, against atheism.)

You start off with a downright false statement: "If morality were objective than every person of our species would share the same moral values." As I have stated, every person doesn't have to believe that murder is wrong for murder to be objectively wrong. I would submit that everyone except those that have something wrong with their mental wiring does know that it is wrong to kill people for no good reason. Have you ever heard of a guilty conscious? I can state without question that it would be wrong to torture a toddler for fun no matter how much money you can get paid for doing it. I'm sure you would agree.

If your statement was true, there could have never been a prosecution in the Nuremberg Trials. The NAZIS would have been able to murder Jews because in their society's morality is subjective to them and killing Jews and stealing their property is Ok because it allows Germans to flourish. If your statement is true then there really isn't a problem with Muslims bombing concerts and building and shooting up people in night clubs. Their social structures just allows it and allows them to flourish based on their definition of flourish. Who are we to disagree?

Your comment: "So I said that people long ago came to some sort if definition of the golden rule as a working principle."

Ok. So why is it good? It's begging the question to just say it's good. The golden rule is good because it allows human flourishing. Why is flourishing good? You see the circular nature, I'm sure.

You said, "The abuse of people as slaves is only a "reduction" of the quality of human life. Just like many ordinary jobs today are a dread and do not elevate people to their full potential."

I see a few problems with this statement. Why does a job have to elevate some one? Wouldn't someone elevate themselves by taking a job they want to do or find another way to elevate themselves (ie Chess)? Aren't free people allowed to determine what elevates them and what does not? If they don't like the pay-rate or the tasks, isn't it up to them to seek a job that suits their requirements based on their ability. I would disagree that slavery is just a reduction in quality of life. I would argue that slavery takes a person's right giving to them by God to make choices for themselves. Besides, why is a reduction in quality of life bad? We are just sacks of biochemical reactions on a rock hurdling through space on our way to a cold, bitter end at the heat death of the universe.



Godspeed to you.

Donnie said...

Part Three:

Your comment, "I noticed that people usually only engage in genocidal behavior AFTER they have categorized groups as NON human. This is another proof that humans intrinsically know that they should not treat equals that way."

I think you are correct. I wouldn't call it proof, I would use the word evidence, but I get your point. You seem to be making contradicting arguments. On one hand you seem to think that there is no objective morality and then it seems that you make an argument like this that supports objective morality. If a person "intrinsically know[s]" something wouldn't that make it objective? Wouldn't that value have to lie outside of them by its very nature to be true. If it was dependent on them, then wouldn't it just be an opinion and not necessarily true?

Your comment: "Now there lies the difference with many believing in morality being attributed from a magical source who have in the past made all effort to brandish moral people like the south koreans as pagans worthy of death through a narrow and highly subjective morality deducted from their magical books of codification that contradicts their subjective morality."

I'm quite amazed with the language and concepts you used in this statement. It is a strange concept to me to that objective morality arises from a "magic source". It seems to me that it is you that thinks morality comes from a magic source. You have already stated that people know "intrinsically" that they shouldn't kill people because they are equal to them. It seems to me that you are relying on "magic" to assume this is true with no justification. My view is that objective morals have a source and its not magic at all. Aristotle revealed to us thousands of years ago that the concept of a Prime Mover/Unmoved Mover/God is logically coherent and without such a thing there is no coherence to reality or any reality for that matter. Objective morality flows from the Prime Mover and his nature is rational and moral -- that, my friend, is intrinsic. Atheistic thinkers have been attempting to escape this brute fact since, just as you are now with your circular reasoning and contradicting concepts.

Donnie said...

Part Four:

On your interpretation of the story of Abraham in the Old Testament: It does indeed seem bazaar to me and very "flat" and denies the robust nature of that story that is rich with meaning. I am not prepared to discuss theology in this short post. I usually reserve the discussion of those matters with other theists. It seems to me that it is impossible to discuss such matters with people who have a poor understanding of the nature of God or those who have a materialistic view of reality. It would suffice to say that your interpretation is yours and can do little to support your theory of morality or disprove mine. It does seem strange to me that a person who doesn't trust the reliability of the Bible would use it as evidence. Even more, you might even be bringing up a "straw man" that you can easily knock down. HWA would employ such tactics. Either way, it still does nothing to refute objective morality comes from God.

One quick note. Dr. Jordan Peterson (not a theologian, but a scientist) has a lecture on the story of Abraham. I would encourage you to find that and review it. You should be able to find it easily on Youtube.

You said, "I m glad the founding fathers according to the philosophy of the day did away with all this nonsense after the example of the french who ended the political power of the priests first."

I would certainly agree that "priests" shouldn't have political power. Didn't Jesus of Nazareth warn us about this? I think so. Here is what our founding fathers thought philosophically in a nut shell:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -Declaration of Independence.

You said, "...peoples "inalienable rights" for the very reason that they are equal to ourselves, they are OUR image."

Not according to our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence.

Take my comments as you will. I hope they have helped you. I encourage you to look at why you believe what you believe. And if those beliefs are logical and rational or are they reactionary to something else? I would be happy to continue the conversation by email if you so desire. If so, let me know.

nck said...

So you were never part of cog. No wonder I singled you out for this interesting conversation.

I think there is enough stuff for now for those interested to have an interesting read. There is slight risk I/we might slip into a discussion on what we did or did not say/type which would distract from the main body of information.

We could continue by e-mail. But you of all people must be aware that you gave me quite some homework in order to be able to engage on a deeper level.

For instance I will take your suggestion to look up Dr Peterson.

One thing I am sure I do not agree with you at this time. That is your interpretation of the intent of the Declaration of Independence.

My textbooks however are in a big box so I have to look up my source for my claim that the priests of Enlightenment for certain did not have the christian god in mind when drafting the declaration. It leaves room to interpret that way. But I have studied the philosophers of enlightenment, natural law, the law of nature, hobbes,rousseau, locke, paine, More, etc long enough to have passed real exams and know decades after the fact and of the cuff that it is different from your interpretation. In normal conversation with the folks up here I let that go and don't even bother to look up my sources. But with you I will make some time and see how I got to my conclusion which a long time ago was top of mind.

To claim Iron sharpens iron would at this stage amount to arrogance from my side. But I do know I am not as stupid as my spelling makes me look.

To make one more wild stab in your direction out of personal frustration to not have the necessary information available immediately.

Are you of the type that believes the mythical story about christian folk landing at plymouth rock and shaping america from that point on? Or do you have knowledge on the legal documents from what is called New York State today that shaped the destiny of America, its definitions of freedom, the legality of breaking away from the British and the true and original meaning of liberty, now woven into the very fabric of our culture, disseminated over the entire world stemming from a pirates nest (at an island at the center of the world) 100 miles down from and many years before plymouth.

If you know about the 2nd and the origins of liberalism, (not the modern leftist commie talk, but original liberalism) then you are aware of the fallacy of the force fed narrative of America the beacon of freedom as a single christian nation by definition.

Nck

nck said...

https://www.thoughtco.com/declaration-of-independence-and-christianity-myth-249684

https://www.quora.com/Who-or-what-is-the-Creator-in-an-atheist-reading-of-the-Declaration-of-Independence

Thinking about it. I believe you are intelligent enough to have deduced that if I would quote from my textbooks the reasoning would be along the lines of the articles quoted above.

You said you had studied the subject so there is no use to empty my boxes. Perhaps the occassional reader will find someting new in the brief articles above and perhaps if interested travel to Monticello to learn what Thomas Jefferson really believed and what he meant qhen defining the source of power and authority to govern/serve.

After all my postings are not intended to convince anyone, but at least to challenge common held believes that are founded on narratives, myths, lack of research that the originators of the foundational texts of america had foreseen, but rather as only one aspect within a larger framework of philosophy on liberty than the leading narrative that it has become for the bible belt.

Nck



nck said...

"Reactionary to something else"

A most important observation!

I believe that original liberalism (the spinoza kind, not the narrow minded framing of the term by modern reactionaries) was indeed a reaction to experiences with outdated models of human social organization.

So yes in that case.

No, if you implied that I am frustrated with christian philosophy. Not at all. I have gone out of my way to express several times that in my opinion you come across as a seeker of truth.

I do only on occassion turn antagonistic with those claiming to have found the truth, seldom with the ones who dare to ask questions and certainly not those that ask questions to have me put more effort in my thought processes.

Nck

Donnie said...

To nck:

I would be happy to discuss American history, the Bible, Christianity and my thoughts on all those. I am university educated, well read, but not an expert on every subject under the sun. My professional expertise is information technology with an interest in logical systems and methodologies. My mind is both creative and structured. I have a special interest in Armstongism and Mormonism. I have an interest in philosophy, cosmology, and natural theism.

If you would like to discuss such matters, let's do by email. Let me know if you are intested in that.

nck said...

Donnie

I play kind of the role of maverick on this forum of rogues. As for a french person to easily recognize subtleties in communicating with their countrymen, most here have a shared background that we can recognize when one is joking, deliberately exagerating or sharing personal stories. To come on this specific blog out of interest for armstrongism is like reading macharthurs memos to learn about japanese culture. Japanese at times would disagree.

I believe this is the first and only thread you have engaged. Usually when I am able to recognize an anonymous I change my tone and manner and decrease my shooting from the hip and increase civility. When I will see Donnie I will remember your extended hand of friendliness. I am around on this blog. So I would change my usual manner whenever you would engage in conversation. For now I find it a good thing to know there is a person with your background on board. I can imagine it hard for you to engage when people here are bickering (in the shared knowledge of their shared background, (or heritage) as the maverick nck would call it.

I have met with people in real life with whom I engaged on blogs and shared common interests. But I am rather fond of my privacy also, actually more than average. For now, I will promise to heed my syntax, spelling, overall formal scientific reasoning if we are to engage again in the future. You posed a challenge different from the usual and regular lunacy here. Feel free to engage, if I cannot answer in public on a certain topic we might aswell continue via e-mail.

Nck

Donnie said...

To nck:

"To come on this specific blog out of interest for armstrongism is like reading macharthurs memos to learn about japanese culture. Japanese at times would disagree."

So true. That's exactly how I feel when reading most of this stuff. I do, however, mine some shiny nuggets from time to time. Of course, I appreciate the satire sometimes.

Being that I have no actual experience in organizations such as this, it is merely an intellectual exercise on my part.

I certainly am empathetic to those here even though I am just an observer. As an observer, it is not often I have anything to contribute. I will do what I can to contribute to the continued demise of Armstrongism.

I do have one fear and I do see it manifested here. People leaving Armstrongism and in bitterness leaving their faith. It does seem that after people are beaten down by the Army of Armstrong they are likely to suppress the concept of a loving, just, and rational God that is the creator of reality. HWA was lost, but those fallen away from HWA don't have to be.

Godspeed to you.

nck said...

Yes, that is certainly the conclusion one would reach reading this blog.

This blog draws a particular crowd.

There are hundreds of blogs out there with people who came to more mellow conclusions than the hardcore older generation here. This is a place of satire and people blowing of steam.

On facebook and yahoo are groups (former wcg associates, students, youth camps) of all kinds that are very friendly, leading moral lives and succesful by material standards too. They hardly have time to wallow on hearsay.

This blog does a good job holding some splinters with of the wall leaders accountable. But some of those getting attention never had any prominence , besides getting attention from this blog. Good fun though but insignificant as compared to the thousands of facebook friends with different associations today but remembering youth sports events or other things.

Nck

nck said...

Donnie

In my opinion many people drawn to armstrongism had already in one way or another and for different reasons been dissatisfied with "traditional christianity". Often from personal experience or rational deduction.

The fact that I come across as "mixed" or seemingly having mutual exclusive opinions derives from whom I meet


One time a person argues the case for an all knowing loving God, then in the same sentence set himself up for being the ultimate judge on for example HWA without even having met the man.

Thats one example why I harp on the seperation of church and state as a necessity and condition for a society to thrive. Without losing respect for christians.

One of the attractive features of Armstrongism was the thesis that God had not revealed his plan to many
Which contained the promise of salvation for 99% of those who had ever lived. Sadly this tenet turned somewhat in exclusivism. But you get the gist that Armstrongism contained many improvements on traditional thought patterns that got perverted by narrow interpretations from narrow perspectives.

These are displayed often on this particular blog by those incapable of theorizing and only draw from bad examples.

On the other hand. The most atractive features of Armstrongism regarding mans destiny are considered heresy and blasphemy by the traditional church philosophy anyway. Interesting stuff as for some miniature railroads are.

Nck

Anonymous said...

NCK. I am on many of those Facebook groups where everyone is supposedly friendly and warm and fuzzy. Most of this have admins who delete or kick out anyone who dares to criticize Herbert, the church, YOU, SEP, or any of the satellite organizations or splinters. Information does not freely flow like it does here. The people here are just as moral and well adjusted as you claim they all are. We are also just as successful as they are. Some times you have interesting things to say, other times like now, you show how full of crap you are.

nck said...

Perhaps it is in both our natures to now start quoting thousands of scriptures why or why not hwa or others in mormonism are "lost".

My point is that our judgment would only be an estimation by the data that we have gathered for over at most 90 years. So I feel you should have phrased it. HWA might by my estimation be lost......instead of taking Gods chair.

Now, would this be an excuse as not to intervene or warn a toddler nearing the boiling teapot? No of course not, we are to weigh the evidence, sometimes within nano seconds.

My point is, who am I to say the toddler is stupid or deserving of mishap. While in another universe the toddler might just have been following mommy's example to serve daddy a cup of tea, or perhaps mistaken the real thing for one of the toys.

So yes. We are to warn, intervene, help and aid by rational standards. And we are to evaluate our judgments and motives while executing our actions.

This is not a condemnation of you. Just a reaction to some of the results of missionary works I saw yesterday on a documentary after "pagans" had been saved from their former ways. While their society had collapsed and alcoholism was rampant. Again good intentions perhaps (as was the seperation of australian aboriginal children from their parents) but poorly executed with horrible results.

I do admit the christianization of the viking race has been a great succes so far and is producing fantastic results since they ceased raiding.


Nck

nck said...

10:41

Yes, I noticed some monitors are quite strict. But most? I mean besides the "groups" there are thousands of personal facebook pages ( with many people nicely associating). I'm sure you have one too.

Look Donnie was not associated with one of the COG's. I was merely pointing out that (not the blog) but a lot of the participants here are partiularly bitter as compared to the many friends still connected "despite" their former association.

Man, some funtions of the church seem like all participants are connected on facebook or alumnisites from 40 years ago. As if nothing had happened.

This would NEVER have happened if ALL were beaten like for instance BB testimony which I have no doubt happened. It just didn't happen that way for the majority. If you would claim so YOU are full of crap.


Moreover I was not CONTRASTING the moral lives of those thousands of still connected people with your or anyones life of the participants on this blog. I was merely pointing out that the people on this blog DO NOT constitute the standard of EVERYONE's experience in the church. Actually it is quite warped here and even in some cases limited to a cultural time frame and frame of location. All of their experiences are true I must assume. But they are certainly not representing my experience or any of the people I met during my 25 year stint.

Let me know when I might have something interesting to say. I might just focus more on those topics then. For instance you might apreciate that I have been engaging with a single person far away in the galaxy of this blog, not in the limelight. Not seeking attention. I guess you apreciate that. So good to have iron sharpen iron and better to let me know where I might have added something interesting.

Cheers 10:41

nck

nck said...

Yes 10.41 , thinking of it.
Especially your remark on justifying that the people here are just as moral as the groups I pointed out it telling of the insecurity that is rampant on this board.
It is you who read in my statement that I contrasted them with those here or deemed them better. I never said that. It was your projection. Ponder that and then you know why you feel the need to point out that I am full of crap without ever having shown a sign of where I might have contributed the slightest interesting bit.

I am not insecure at all at my experience. That may bother some that come here to vent their negatives only, which is ok. I know where this blog falls in the greater spectrum. And it certainly earned its place. Actually it is quite good. It is mostly the commenters that I find bitter and I am learning from that as I said on the Dennis nightmare thread.


nck