Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!
With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable.
Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders
There are STILL flat-earthers who refuse to acknowledge the earth is round (well, technically oblate, but still quite round.)
And how long did it take for the Catholic church to acknowledge the truth of our planet?
It was heretical to even think that the earth was not the center of the universe, was round, and all of the astronomical truths that we know are factual today. It went against everything considered normal of the time. If people before that time came to our generation, they'd think we all went mad.
When Jesus was on the Earth, he was confronted with people who had no knowledge whatsoever of medical diseases or what their true cause. When Jesus encountered an epileptic, no one understood the medical cause of the seizure activity in the person - everything was demons. What's interesting about that account? Jesus did not contradict their opinion. He simply said "this kind can only be removed by fasting and prayer". We were not to the point in civilization that the seizures could be removed by brain surgery, which has cured the disease in many people. But Jesus did not say that to them, I think, because it would have caused more damage to change their belief system than it would to demonstrate his healing abilities.
Indeed, it is more difficult to change your belief system than to do pretty much anything else. Which explains why the movement of Jesus Christ was so controversial in every sense - spiritually, politically, and personally. Because you're getting to the core of who you are as a person, and what you stand for.
Changing your mind is easier than changing your environment.
I changed my mind about LCG some time ago, but because I have one or more family members working at LCG HQ (I need to be vague, for safety's sake. Maybe I work there, too!) there's no way I can be open about my change of mind. If I or my family members worked somewhere else, there would still be lies and politics, so it's not that there's a better environment available to us.
Sometimes, however, I think it would be nice if we could somehow hold a secret ballot and find out how many in the Charlotte congregation or even at HQ are privately no longer believers in LCG. I bet the numbers would shock Mr. Weston, but he wouldn't know how to inspire people's belief. He would just go on doing what they've always done.
"The beatings will continue until morale improves!"
The book/study 'When prophesy fails' deals with faulty beliefs of religious groups. From the Wikipedia article on the book:
" As Festinger wrote, "If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must after all be correct." In this case, if Keech could add consonant elements by converting others to the basic premise, then the magnitude of her dissonance following disconfirmation would be reduced. Festinger and his colleagues predicted that the inevitable disconfirmation would be followed by an enthusiastic effort at proselytizing to seek social support and lessen the pain of disconfirmation."
Someone said: " When Jesus was on the Earth, he was confronted with people who had no knowledge whatsoever of medical diseases or what their true cause. When Jesus encountered an epileptic, no one understood the medical cause of the seizure activity in the person - everything was demons. What's interesting about that account? Jesus did not contradict their opinion. He simply said "this kind can only be removed by fasting and prayer". We were not to the point in civilization that the seizures could be removed by brain surgery, which has cured the disease in many people. But Jesus did not say that to them, I think, because it would have caused more damage to change their belief system than it would to demonstrate his healing abilities."
You're kidding yourself if you think Jesus knew the demon infested kid was epilepsy. To Jesus as well, everything was demons as he, or the Gospel Character, was a product of the times. If you are implying that Jesus knew the truth of science and medicine, you are mistaken. Jesus did not contradict their opinions because he was of the same opinion. He was not super ahead of his time or all knowing. If so, he would have known that some of the world's best Neanderthal remains were in the Caves of Carmel at over 100,000 years old and dropped the Adam and Eve tale as well as the fact that no literal Noah ever did what the OT states he did though Jesus refers to them as real history.
Critical scholars don't hold out much hope for a literal Abraham, Moses or a literal Exodus from Egypt as told in the Bible, but that's another story though Jesus should have known better if he knew all.
Regardless of what Jesus actually thought, and knew, everything you have said, AND everything I have said, is a THEORY based on our belief systems.
I did not say I knew. I said "I thought" that that could possibly be the case.
You say you KNOW. You do not. You theorize based on what you believe. And I, too, theorize, based on what I believe.
You and I are both entitled to say our opinions of what we think we know based on the evidence we have presented to us and the opinions that we make based on that evidence.
But for you to come on here and say YOU KNOW, and this and that as fact, the only question that I have for you is this: When were you Jesus, and when did you return to Earth as Dennis? What happened? How are you so certain? If this is what has happened, I'm certainly curious as to what has happened to you. If this is not what has happened, then you don't KNOW any more than I do. When you present theories and assumptions as fact, to me, you lose credibility in your statements.
I love listening to all manner of opinions! But when someone states theories as fact, without being or knowing that individual - and NOT proving (though you have certainly tried, I'll give you that :) ) that Jesus did not have the mind of God within him, or was in communication with His Father - sorry, I can't give validity to your statements as facts. They are just theories.
Leaving Living Church of God was hard for my family, but we all were getting sick of the lies and abuses from the leadership. To be free of it all has been the biggest blessing ever. Our children are flourishing in school, we have developed new community relationships and have real friends who won't desert us at the flick of a ministers finger. I implore those of you still in LCG, or any other COG for that matter, to weigh the facts that are in front of you and leave. Use the money you save on your family and enjoy life. You will never regret it!
A genuine theory is based on reproducible evidence. Thought up "theories" are just speculations based in no evidence. An idea or speculation about something is not the definition of a scientific theory. Many zealous types hear the word theory and they think it means "mere opinion" when it means, in science, nothing of the kind.
Religion is faith based and Hebrews 11 notes that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seen" which really means that Faith is what we hope is so based on absolutely no evidence."
"Epilepsy is described as the tendency to have repeated seizures that start in the brain. Epilepsy is usually only diagnosed after the person has had more than one seizure. The Greek philosopher Hippocrates (460-377 BC) was the first person to think that epilepsy starts in the brain."
I imagine Hippocrates was scorned for his suspecting the true origins of the dis-ease. But Gospel Jesus, or the authors who storied him up in the Gospels were not students of Greek physicians. They recognized neither medical nor psychological illnesses. Many literalist Christians today don't even do that yet and never will. Dave Pack thinks when a baby cries during his sermons it is Satan trying to distract from his important message. (He corrected my sister in church once for my crying niece with this message to her) Dave is First Century superstitious as is Bob Thiel, no wait, Bronze Age in his case, and most literalist and ill informed and undereducated COG pastor types.
I'll also stand by the fact that Jeremiah was a deeply depressed man who wrote as such and Ezekiel was most likely schizophrenic in his thoughts, words and deeds. In the story of Paul's Damascus road vision, not told by Paul himself but in Acts by Luke (Paul said he was called from the womb like Jeremiah and Jesus), Luke's Paul shows all the signs of temporal lobe epilepsy with religious content. I suspect Luke had seen this lights brighter than the sun (good luck with that) and voices in many so thought it would make a great story of Paul meeting the Cosmic Jesus which is the only way Paul ever knew Jesus.
Scientific theory definition scientific theory. a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: Example: the scientific theory of evolution.
Whether you like it or not and get offended at the "knowing", Evolution of all life is a fact. The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. The solar system and earth is 4.6 billion years old. I have pieces of it sitting right over >>>>>>> there :)
Faith Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement; or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system of religious belief, such as in which faith is confidence based on some degree of warrant.
You seem to be waking up but you might want to quit calling men master per Jesus' command. Just research the history of Mr. it's just as much a religious title as Father or Reverend if you're expected to call the top dog Mr.
It's one thing to use the title when dealing with the world, it's another when a "minister" expects it from you.
I'm not offended by your "knowing", or by the scientific reasoning of the age of the universe. What gets my goat is your "whether you like it or not" statements. I consider that to be a little condescending.
A better way to say it would be "The evolution of all life is a fact. The current measurement of....is based on the Lambda-CDM concordance model. This model has been verified to confirm the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years of age."
I would suggest to you, kindly, that you may reconsider your language when you are engaging in debate with someone of a different opinion. To avoid the condescending attitude that is displayed (which it is, in any case), May I suggest that you use the words that I just used - In any case. It's much more less aggressive, not in any way condescending, and I don't feel like there's a barking animal trying to force their opinion, or fact, or theory, or scientific theory down my throat. :)
I must say though, that to this DAY I have problems calling anyone "Mr.". I avoid it like the plague. I just cannot get myself to do it. If I have to use a formality, ANY word but "MR." will do. There's only so much "Mr." you can hear in over two decades of the Worldwide Church of God.
The STRANGEST thing was when I was at the Summer Educational Program at Orr, and one of the AC college students was someone I knew from my local church area. I always referred to this person by their first name. I saw him, and said "Hi" to him by his first name. I was immediately rebuked. "You're at SEP now, and you have to call me Mr._______"
I avoided him through the entire three week session.
I wish you would be more circumspect with your statements that "evolution of all life is a fact."
The term "evolution" has so many different meanings that you are as likely to be seen wrong as right with such a broad statement. Google "epigenetics" or "Lamarck" for instance and you will find that in the last 20 or 30 years scientists have increasingly become convinced that old DNA-centric theories were wrong, and that epigenetics is a much larger factor than previously thought, which has implications for some "mutations" actually occurring across multiple species at once, which is not at all what Darwin and those following in his footsteps had assumed.
There is NO support for the idea that a minor member of the Canaanite council of gods decided to make human beings from scratch 6,000 years ago. However, we have reached the point at which there are far more OBSOLETE or INCORRECT "theories of evolution" as there are PLAUSIBLE ones based on the current evidence.
The meaning of words evolves over time. Definitions are not dictated by previous generations. So the word 'Mr' means whatever this generation says it means.
"So the word 'Mr' means whatever this generation says it means."
Perhaps you meant to say that "a word means whatever "a" generation says it means."
One cannot imply that Dr Martin L King was a racist by calling everyone around "a negroe". Or your grandmother being a lefty by looking forward to a "gay" party.
I find it interesting how -SHT argues that Jesus was "controlling data" for which he deemed the sheeple not ready. That resembles the catholic worldview in the middle ages. When looking at the court records of the Galileo trial it becomes obvious that the catholic church did not so much have a problem with Galileo's findings. (as a matter of fact most shipcaptains would have known the earth was not flat, columbus was not a madman, neither were his shipmates) The entire Galileo case was built around "who constituted the authority of the day" and Galileo circumventing and challenging the view as put forward by the authorities in their "gatekeeping ways", perhaps even with the loving intent to not endanger the souls of those poor uneducated sheeple, but the "love" versus "power "priests seem to be distributed on a ratio 1 - 10 in history.
I remember our once every five year sermon about why a minister was to be called Mr. Our minister argued that it would have been more biblical to call him "priest (presbyteros)", but that would embarass him somewhat, descending from the purest of protestant stock.
I never had a problem with calling a person Dick in private but Mr Dick in public.
"The meaning of words evolves over time. Definitions are not dictated by previous generations. So the word 'Mr' means whatever this generation says it means."
Yes, it is a title of respect. So you respect your "minister" more than your fellow brethren?
Please tell me how your comment applies to this scenario. A group of men fellowshipping after services:
Frank: How was your week George? George: Not bad Frank, yours? How about yours Bob? Bob: Could have been better but no point complaining. Did you go fishing this week Mr. Smith? Minister: Yes I did Bob, it was a good week. I heard that you painted your house this week Tom, everything go well?
What do you think would happen if Tom addressed the "minister" by his first name?
It's one thing if every man is called Mr. it's quite another when it's used as a title.
As far as meanings not being dictated by previous generations, does that also apply to Christmas and Easter? Just because they were once pagan can we now change the meaning to be about Christ?
Come on, be consistent.
Also, you can twist Jesus' command to not call any man master, teacher, father or reverend all that you want but the fact remains he was teaching against titles of superiority of any kind and your support of the WCG tradition of elevating a clergy class above all others goes against Jesus' direct command.
DennisCDiehl August 14, 2018 at 6:05 PM said: "...In the story of Paul's Damascus road vision, not told by Paul himself but in Acts by Luke (Paul said he was called from the womb like Jeremiah and Jesus), Luke's Paul shows all the signs of temporal lobe epilepsy with religious content..."
Paul also believed that God foreknew Paul's existence:
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. :29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. :30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
John also was inspired to tell us that God was more involved in the lives of some human beings than most would give God any credit for:
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: :13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Paul elsewhere mentioned that some things were determined before the foundation of the world:
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Belief in those words are one thing, believing the interpretation that these verses are talking individually and not collectively is another.
Some have a problem with limiting God's knowledge, does God know exactly what he's going to be doing 1,000,000,000,000,000 (I'll call them years but we know a year is limited to our current solar system) from now? If that's the case it sounds like a boring existence to me. Absolutely nothing new.
I have no problem believing God when he told Abram, "now I know" or when he asked Adam "where are you" or "who told you" that he isn't "all knowing" about everything.
"I never had a problem with calling a person Dick in private but Mr Dick in public."
Not having a problem with it isn't the point, Jesus said to call no man master. Look up the Greek word, it doesn't matter if English meanings change over time or not, the word means guide or leader.
We are to look to no man as our guide or leader spiritually speaking for God is our guide/leader not a man.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be willing to consider what a man (any man or woman whether """ minister""" or not) has to say, and if we deem him/her correct do what they say but that doesn't make them an authority over our lives physically or spiritually.
Well, I like that. Luke, Matthew, John, Ezechiel, James, not surnames I guess. "Kevin", as a bible book.
Mr was supposed to be a title for adressing or referring to a man without a higher, honorific or professional title. Or to adress a man whose name is not known. A term of respect attached to a proper name.
In the movie "gladiator" maximus refers to the nobility on horseback as "patres" before they wipe out the bearded german savages.
Living languages change with time. Why are we trying to treat English as if it had died hundreds of years ago. Tell anyone on the street today that by calling someone “Mr.” they are actually acknowledging them as being their master, and you will receive any number of quizzical or possibly even angry reactions. Most of us here recognize that line of thought as being part and parcel of the manipulative word games that we were taught in Armstrongism, to support our bogus belief system.
Dictionaries list primary or preferred definitions, and secondary definitions. Even the word “master” can mean a learned expert in a given craft or field, or a young boy who is not old enough to be called “Mr.”
It is patently ridiculous to believe that use of a contemporary cultural term of respect is tantamount to blaspheming Jesus and making the man we are calling “Mr.” our supreme guru instead. First, Jesus didn’t speak English. He spoke first century Aramaic and or Hebrew. Moreover, the NT was written in Greek, and translated (translation is paraphrase) into King James English hundreds of years later. Anyone who has studied early English literature realizes the extent to which spellings and meanings have evolved over the past hundreds of years. The element of intent in our speech is the key. Ancient semantics are not only irrelevant. It’s also stupid to invoke them.
Don’t believe me, Kevin? Would you like me to prove my point by describing you using an 1890s term? Gay?
I have no problem with using Mr. in general, as long as it's used equally for all. In the WCG it was used as a title for the unbiblical clergy/ministerial class.
When used to refer to the man giving opening or closing prayer I see no problem. The problem in this case would be, why only men giving prayers or why the hell do we have to use this format for services?
If everyone in the scenario that I posted above at 5:00am was addressed as Mr. there would be no problem. The problem is, giving one man a title because he is the man in charge clearly goes against Jesus' command not to call any man our guide or leader, being translated master in the KJV.
Tell me, if a WCG "minister" was in a casual conversation with a younger female member who had a PhD do you honestly think he'd address her as Dr.?
The WCG tradition has been so ingrained in us that we see using it for the "minister" as perfectly fine, we balk when someone points out that Jesus said not to call any man your spiritual leader for God is your leader.
The Pharisees often balked when confronted by Jesus. Are we going to follow traditions, as the Pharisees did, or are we going to obey Jesus?
Moderator, I see that my use of the word "balls" is not allowed for what ever reason. Would gonads have been better? Is there something wrong with balls or gonads? I thought they were a fact of life. Oh well. 😁
Are you the one walking into the opera house in jeans all the time........ I mean, it is ok to have a sense of decorum.
And to you, young master RSK........
"My dad can beat up your dad!"
Go wash your mouth or I will tell Mr Johnson what you said.
btw I recently found my father's plane tickets in the attic from when he was a young boy on a long distance flight.
It said MASTER .......so and so. The kid was only 15.
I second BB on the language shift. I did pass my "olde english" exams at university, very interesting to see how the danes, saxons, french, romans all influenced the language until Shakespeare and King James tied it all together. I do remember the world "Lord" deriving from "Loaf Ward", or "the one that is to divide the bread".
I don't know Kevin, if HWA was on a first name basis with Golda (Meir), Maggie, Lisa (Noor) or if he did talk shoes with Imelda. I think on the "Little Ambassors from Shanghai" video most of the Chinese female representatives are referred to as DR Lin Shuao etc. But hey in China he was at an advantage as the elderly person.
Perhaps you mistyped an I where an A was due when you stated that "anonymous lacked the balls." The decorum is in the details and sometimes two letters like Mr make all the difference.
Why is it when discussing a biblical topic everyone seems to be hung up on the english word and it's usage?
Debating the change in language over time was not my original intent. I never once denied that language meanings change over time.
This is why I specifically said the Greek word transliterated (not paraphrased, oh so smart BB) master in the KJV meant guide or leader. Meaning someone that one looks to for direction. Jesus clearly said that job was God's!
That's doesn't mean that we can't listen to what a man has to say, consider the advice based upon what our true leader says in His Word, and follow it.
We in the WCG, and today in most splinters have delegated men to follow, replacing God.
All this debate over what master, mister, gay etc. meant in the past is just to muddy the subject of what is clear. We are not to give men religious titles and that's what is being done when the only man in a conversation after services is called Mr. is the "minister".
"I don't know Kevin, if HWA was on a first name basis with Golda (Meir), Maggie, Lisa (Noor) or if he did talk shoes with Imelda."
Who cares? We're not discussing whether or not to call a Dr. doctor, or your lawyer Mr. At least I wasn't. Ignorant people have twisted the subject to that, the original statement that I clearly made was that in a religious, spiritual setting we're not to elevate any one man, or even group of men over others. We are brethren.
That's what was done in the WCG with the "ministerial" class, and it's still being done today in the splinters.
I really hate to do this but I have to apologize to Bob Byker, I was wrong, it's not transliterated it is translated.
Transliterate as I'm sure you know, and I knew when I posted is to use english letters in place of the Greek letters. I don't know why I wrote that, the older I get the more brain farts that I have.
"Are you the one walking into the opera house in jeans all the time........ I mean, it is ok to have a sense of decorum."
Really? Is that where this discussion has gone, thinking that I don't believe in calling Professionals or even a casual acquaintance Dr., Mr. or Sir? That I don't show respect? Wow!
I've plainly said that we should show respect to all, and then I'm misrepresented as being someone lacking decorum? Even if it was in jest, it shows the incorrect preconceived ideas different people get when reading plain posts, misinterpreted because of their bias.
Interesting how the minds of people work, or don't work.
FYI forget the opera house, I always dress up. I even wear suits to church but occasionally jeans and even shorts.
No, it's not uncouth to believe that we are all brothers in the church and that elevated titles in the church for so called religious leaders is in direct disobedience to Jesus!
"btw Shorts to church? In my biased world I imagine you in the Caribean or Hawai, Trinidad, Belize. But I'm a bit warped."
Thanks nck, and I realize that many of your comments were made in jest(Dick/Mr. Dick), but elevating anyone over another in the church is just evil and it continues to this day, this is why I take it so seriously.
A person won't fall for the b.s. if they realize that God doesn't play favorites in the church. Israel's government was a completely different situation than today.
Do you know of any priest paying tithes on his increase? Yeah, the Levites has to give the sons of Aaron 10% of what they received, but to say that was them paying tithes is a stretch.
That being so, why would the "royal priesthood" have to pay tithes? To be consistent they would be receiving the tithe not paying.
Abram paid tithes on the spoils of war. There is no evidence that he paid any other time. In fact, biblical evidence shows that Abram didn't teach his grandson Jacob that tithing was a law, if he had then Jacob wouldn't have brokered a deal with God "bless me and then I'll give you a tenth". That's like telling God, "bless me and I won't steal from my neighbor".
Hate to spoil your visions of me laying on a beach drinking a ""be fruitful and multiply" on the beach", but I'm from WV.
Also, God doesn't play favorites in the world either. I'm no better than anyone worshipping Buddah, or keeping Christmas this December.
I believe God's calling people in this world is more of a curse than a blessing, not really but physically speaking it is.
Don't get me wrong when I say this, I'm in no way wishing to do any of what I'm about to point out, in fact it would be easy just to give in, but.....I have a friend who is with a different woman almost every month, can eat all the pork bacon that he wants, can lie, steal and cheat to get ahead. That fellow will be in God's kingdom one day and I say great. Hell, I hope Adolph Hitler is eventually saved. The world we live in is a bitch, we have it made here and even sometimes it's tough for us.
There has to be more to this life than eat, drink and be merry for if there isn't, honestly it's not worth it.
Oh well, that's enough I really have to get to work.
" btw I recently found my father's plane tickets in the attic from when he was a young boy on a long distance flight.
It said MASTER .......so and so. The kid was only 15."
I have heard that before too in occasional use, addressing young men as "Master" in formal terms while adult men were addressed/referred to as "Mister". Its apparently uncommon now.
Otherwise I would have taken him down the rabbit hole of the movie "Master and Commander, Far side of the world", where Midshipman William Blakeney 15 years old is to be saluted, respected and obeyed and adressed as Master.
Kevin knows I'm kidding again, although I do remember that the shipcaptains in my family were by law allowed to perform duties on board that were otherwise delegated to the realm of the clergy.
I hope I'm not making anyone's head spin, with this "hybrid clergy :-)" example from olden days.
40 comments:
There are STILL flat-earthers who refuse to acknowledge the earth is round (well, technically oblate, but still quite round.)
And how long did it take for the Catholic church to acknowledge the truth of our planet?
It was heretical to even think that the earth was not the center of the universe, was round, and all of the astronomical truths that we know are factual today. It went against everything considered normal of the time. If people before that time came to our generation, they'd think we all went mad.
When Jesus was on the Earth, he was confronted with people who had no knowledge whatsoever of medical diseases or what their true cause. When Jesus encountered an epileptic, no one understood the medical cause of the seizure activity in the person - everything was demons. What's interesting about that account? Jesus did not contradict their opinion. He simply said "this kind can only be removed by fasting and prayer". We were not to the point in civilization that the seizures could be removed by brain surgery, which has cured the disease in many people. But Jesus did not say that to them, I think, because it would have caused more damage to change their belief system than it would to demonstrate his healing abilities.
Indeed, it is more difficult to change your belief system than to do pretty much anything else. Which explains why the movement of Jesus Christ was so controversial in every sense - spiritually, politically, and personally. Because you're getting to the core of who you are as a person, and what you stand for.
-SHT
Changing your mind is easier than changing your environment.
I changed my mind about LCG some time ago, but because I have one or more family members working at LCG HQ (I need to be vague, for safety's sake. Maybe I work there, too!) there's no way I can be open about my change of mind. If I or my family members worked somewhere else, there would still be lies and politics, so it's not that there's a better environment available to us.
Sometimes, however, I think it would be nice if we could somehow hold a secret ballot and find out how many in the Charlotte congregation or even at HQ are privately no longer believers in LCG. I bet the numbers would shock Mr. Weston, but he wouldn't know how to inspire people's belief. He would just go on doing what they've always done.
"The beatings will continue until morale improves!"
The book/study 'When prophesy fails' deals with faulty beliefs of religious groups. From the Wikipedia article on the book:
" As Festinger wrote, "If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must after all be correct."
In this case, if Keech could add consonant elements by converting others to the basic premise, then the magnitude of her dissonance following disconfirmation would be reduced. Festinger and his colleagues predicted that the inevitable disconfirmation would be followed by an enthusiastic effort at proselytizing to seek social support and lessen the pain of disconfirmation."
Someone said: "
When Jesus was on the Earth, he was confronted with people who had no knowledge whatsoever of medical diseases or what their true cause. When Jesus encountered an epileptic, no one understood the medical cause of the seizure activity in the person - everything was demons. What's interesting about that account? Jesus did not contradict their opinion. He simply said "this kind can only be removed by fasting and prayer". We were not to the point in civilization that the seizures could be removed by brain surgery, which has cured the disease in many people. But Jesus did not say that to them, I think, because it would have caused more damage to change their belief system than it would to demonstrate his healing abilities."
You're kidding yourself if you think Jesus knew the demon infested kid was epilepsy. To Jesus as well, everything was demons as he, or the Gospel Character, was a product of the times. If you are implying that Jesus knew the truth of science and medicine, you are mistaken. Jesus did not contradict their opinions because he was of the same opinion. He was not super ahead of his time or all knowing. If so, he would have known that some of the world's best Neanderthal remains were in the Caves of Carmel at over 100,000 years old and dropped the Adam and Eve tale as well as the fact that no literal Noah ever did what the OT states he did though Jesus refers to them as real history.
Critical scholars don't hold out much hope for a literal Abraham, Moses or a literal Exodus from Egypt as told in the Bible, but that's another story though Jesus should have known better if he knew all.
(Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:3–9)(Matthew 24:38–39),
Dennis,
Regardless of what Jesus actually thought, and knew, everything you have said, AND everything I have said, is a THEORY based on our belief systems.
I did not say I knew. I said "I thought" that that could possibly be the case.
You say you KNOW. You do not. You theorize based on what you believe. And I, too, theorize, based on what I believe.
You and I are both entitled to say our opinions of what we think we know based on the evidence we have presented to us and the opinions that we make based on that evidence.
But for you to come on here and say YOU KNOW, and this and that as fact, the only question that I have for you is this: When were you Jesus, and when did you return to Earth as Dennis? What happened? How are you so certain? If this is what has happened, I'm certainly curious as to what has happened to you. If this is not what has happened, then you don't KNOW any more than I do. When you present theories and assumptions as fact, to me, you lose credibility in your statements.
I love listening to all manner of opinions! But when someone states theories as fact, without being or knowing that individual - and NOT proving (though you have certainly tried, I'll give you that :) ) that Jesus did not have the mind of God within him, or was in communication with His Father - sorry, I can't give validity to your statements as facts. They are just theories.
Unless you really WERE Jesus! :)
-SHT
Leaving Living Church of God was hard for my family, but we all were getting sick of the lies and abuses from the leadership. To be free of it all has been the biggest blessing ever. Our children are flourishing in school, we have developed new community relationships and have real friends who won't desert us at the flick of a ministers finger. I implore those of you still in LCG, or any other COG for that matter, to weigh the facts that are in front of you and leave. Use the money you save on your family and enjoy life. You will never regret it!
A genuine theory is based on reproducible evidence. Thought up "theories" are just speculations based in no evidence. An idea or speculation about something is not the definition of a scientific theory. Many zealous types hear the word theory and they think it means "mere opinion" when it means, in science, nothing of the kind.
Religion is faith based and Hebrews 11 notes that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seen" which really means that Faith is what we hope is so based on absolutely no evidence."
"Epilepsy is described as the tendency to have repeated seizures that start in the brain. Epilepsy is usually only diagnosed after the person has had more than one seizure. The Greek philosopher Hippocrates (460-377 BC) was the first person to think that epilepsy starts in the brain."
I imagine Hippocrates was scorned for his suspecting the true origins of the dis-ease. But Gospel Jesus, or the authors who storied him up in the Gospels were not students of Greek physicians. They recognized neither medical nor psychological illnesses. Many literalist Christians today don't even do that yet and never will. Dave Pack thinks when a baby cries during his sermons it is Satan trying to distract from his important message. (He corrected my sister in church once for my crying niece with this message to her) Dave is First Century superstitious as is Bob Thiel, no wait, Bronze Age in his case, and most literalist and ill informed and undereducated COG pastor types.
I'll also stand by the fact that Jeremiah was a deeply depressed man who wrote as such and Ezekiel was most likely schizophrenic in his thoughts, words and deeds. In the story of Paul's Damascus road vision, not told by Paul himself but in Acts by Luke (Paul said he was called from the womb like Jeremiah and Jesus), Luke's Paul shows all the signs of temporal lobe epilepsy with religious content. I suspect Luke had seen this lights brighter than the sun (good luck with that) and voices in many so thought it would make a great story of Paul meeting the Cosmic Jesus which is the only way Paul ever knew Jesus.
Scientific theory definition
scientific theory. a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: Example: the scientific theory of evolution.
Whether you like it or not and get offended at the "knowing", Evolution of all life is a fact. The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. The solar system and earth is 4.6 billion years old. I have pieces of it sitting right over >>>>>>> there :)
Faith
Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement; or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system of religious belief, such as in which faith is confidence based on some degree of warrant.
You seem to be waking up but you might want to quit calling men master per Jesus' command. Just research the history of Mr. it's just as much a religious title as Father or Reverend if you're expected to call the top dog Mr.
It's one thing to use the title when dealing with the world, it's another when a "minister" expects it from you.
Kevin
I'm not offended by your "knowing", or by the scientific reasoning of the age of the universe. What gets my goat is your "whether you like it or not" statements. I consider that to be a little condescending.
A better way to say it would be "The evolution of all life is a fact. The current measurement of....is based on the Lambda-CDM concordance model. This model has been verified to confirm the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years of age."
I would suggest to you, kindly, that you may reconsider your language when you are engaging in debate with someone of a different opinion. To avoid the condescending attitude that is displayed (which it is, in any case), May I suggest that you use the words that I just used - In any case. It's much more less aggressive, not in any way condescending, and I don't feel like there's a barking animal trying to force their opinion, or fact, or theory, or scientific theory down my throat. :)
-SHT
6:43 -
I'm not the person you were responding to...
I must say though, that to this DAY I have problems calling anyone "Mr.". I avoid it like the plague. I just cannot get myself to do it. If I have to use a formality, ANY word but "MR." will do. There's only so much "Mr." you can hear in over two decades of the Worldwide Church of God.
The STRANGEST thing was when I was at the Summer Educational Program at Orr, and one of the AC college students was someone I knew from my local church area. I always referred to this person by their first name. I saw him, and said "Hi" to him by his first name. I was immediately rebuked. "You're at SEP now, and you have to call me Mr._______"
I avoided him through the entire three week session.
@ 6:55PM, and @ Dennis,
I wish you would be more circumspect with your statements that "evolution of all life is a fact."
The term "evolution" has so many different meanings that you are as likely to be seen wrong as right with such a broad statement. Google "epigenetics" or "Lamarck" for instance and you will find that in the last 20 or 30 years scientists have increasingly become convinced that old DNA-centric theories were wrong, and that epigenetics is a much larger factor than previously thought, which has implications for some "mutations" actually occurring across multiple species at once, which is not at all what Darwin and those following in his footsteps had assumed.
There is NO support for the idea that a minor member of the Canaanite council of gods decided to make human beings from scratch 6,000 years ago. However, we have reached the point at which there are far more OBSOLETE or INCORRECT "theories of evolution" as there are PLAUSIBLE ones based on the current evidence.
You people think you are smart but you are dumb.
7.58 PM
"You people think you are smart but are dumb."
Yes, Mr Minister. Thanks for straightening us out. God bless you.
The meaning of words evolves over time. Definitions are not dictated by previous generations. So the word 'Mr' means whatever this generation says it means.
7:58 P.M. I think it's past your bedtime. Run along little one.
" " As Festinger wrote, "If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must after all be correct." "
oh, you mean like, Sunday is the Christian Sabbath? and Christians must not Judaize by keeping the "jewish" Sabbath?
thanks for clearing that up for us.
"So the word 'Mr' means whatever this generation says it means."
Perhaps you meant to say that "a word means whatever "a" generation says it means."
One cannot imply that Dr Martin L King was a racist by calling everyone around "a negroe". Or your grandmother being a lefty by looking forward to a "gay" party.
I find it interesting how -SHT argues that Jesus was "controlling data" for which he deemed the sheeple not ready. That resembles the catholic worldview in the middle ages. When looking at the court records of the Galileo trial it becomes obvious that the catholic church did not so much have a problem with Galileo's findings. (as a matter of fact most shipcaptains would have known the earth was not flat, columbus was not a madman, neither were his shipmates) The entire Galileo case was built around "who constituted the authority of the day" and Galileo circumventing and challenging the view as put forward by the authorities in their "gatekeeping ways", perhaps even with the loving intent to not endanger the souls of those poor uneducated sheeple, but the "love" versus "power "priests seem to be distributed on a ratio 1 - 10 in history.
I remember our once every five year sermon about why a minister was to be called Mr. Our minister argued that it would have been more biblical to call him "priest (presbyteros)", but that would embarass him somewhat, descending from the purest of protestant stock.
I never had a problem with calling a person Dick in private but Mr Dick in public.
nck
"The meaning of words evolves over time. Definitions are not dictated by previous generations. So the word 'Mr' means whatever this generation says it means."
Yes, it is a title of respect. So you respect your "minister" more than your fellow brethren?
Please tell me how your comment applies to this scenario. A group of men fellowshipping after services:
Frank: How was your week George?
George: Not bad Frank, yours? How about yours Bob?
Bob: Could have been better but no point complaining. Did you go fishing this week Mr. Smith?
Minister: Yes I did Bob, it was a good week. I heard that you painted your house this week Tom, everything go well?
What do you think would happen if Tom addressed the "minister" by his first name?
It's one thing if every man is called Mr. it's quite another when it's used as a title.
As far as meanings not being dictated by previous generations, does that also apply to Christmas and Easter? Just because they were once pagan can we now change the meaning to be about Christ?
Come on, be consistent.
Also, you can twist Jesus' command to not call any man master, teacher, father or reverend all that you want but the fact remains he was teaching against titles of superiority of any kind and your support of the WCG tradition of elevating a clergy class above all others goes against Jesus' direct command.
Keep your traditions, I'll obey Jesus!
Kevin
DennisCDiehl August 14, 2018 at 6:05 PM said: "...In the story of Paul's Damascus road vision, not told by Paul himself but in Acts by Luke (Paul said he was called from the womb like Jeremiah and Jesus), Luke's Paul shows all the signs of temporal lobe epilepsy with religious content..."
Paul also believed that God foreknew Paul's existence:
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
John also was inspired to tell us that God was more involved in the lives of some human beings than most would give God any credit for:
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Paul elsewhere mentioned that some things were determined before the foundation of the world:
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Whether you believe those words or not:
Time will tell...
John
"Whether you believe those words or not:
Time will tell...
John"
Belief in those words are one thing, believing the interpretation that these verses are talking individually and not collectively is another.
Some have a problem with limiting God's knowledge, does God know exactly what he's going to be doing 1,000,000,000,000,000 (I'll call them years but we know a year is limited to our current solar system) from now? If that's the case it sounds like a boring existence to me. Absolutely nothing new.
I have no problem believing God when he told Abram, "now I know" or when he asked Adam "where are you" or "who told you" that he isn't "all knowing" about everything.
Kevin
"I never had a problem with calling a person Dick in private but Mr Dick in public."
Not having a problem with it isn't the point, Jesus said to call no man master. Look up the Greek word, it doesn't matter if English meanings change over time or not, the word means guide or leader.
We are to look to no man as our guide or leader spiritually speaking for God is our guide/leader not a man.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be willing to consider what a man (any man or woman whether """ minister""" or not) has to say, and if we deem him/her correct do what they say but that doesn't make them an authority over our lives physically or spiritually.
Kevin
My dad can beat up your dad!
Well, I like that. Luke, Matthew, John, Ezechiel, James, not surnames I guess. "Kevin", as a bible book.
Mr was supposed to be a title for adressing or referring to a man without a higher, honorific or professional title. Or to adress a man whose name is not known. A term of respect attached to a proper name.
In the movie "gladiator" maximus refers to the nobility on horseback as "patres" before they wipe out the bearded german savages.
Nck
Living languages change with time. Why are we trying to treat English as if it had died hundreds of years ago. Tell anyone on the street today that by calling someone “Mr.” they are actually acknowledging them as being their master, and you will receive any number of quizzical or possibly even angry reactions. Most of us here recognize that line of thought as being part and parcel of the manipulative word games that we were taught in Armstrongism, to support our bogus belief system.
Dictionaries list primary or preferred definitions, and secondary definitions. Even the word “master” can mean a learned expert in a given craft or field, or a young boy who is not old enough to be called “Mr.”
It is patently ridiculous to believe that use of a contemporary cultural term of respect is tantamount to blaspheming Jesus and making the man we are calling “Mr.” our supreme guru instead. First, Jesus didn’t speak English. He spoke first century Aramaic and or Hebrew. Moreover, the NT was written in Greek, and translated (translation is paraphrase) into King James English hundreds of years later. Anyone who has studied early English literature realizes the extent to which spellings and meanings have evolved over the past hundreds of years. The element of intent in our speech is the key. Ancient semantics are not only irrelevant. It’s also stupid to invoke them.
Don’t believe me, Kevin? Would you like me to prove my point by describing you using an 1890s term? Gay?
BB
I have no problem with using Mr. in general, as long as it's used equally for all. In the WCG it was used as a title for the unbiblical clergy/ministerial class.
When used to refer to the man giving opening or closing prayer I see no problem. The problem in this case would be, why only men giving prayers or why the hell do we have to use this format for services?
If everyone in the scenario that I posted above at 5:00am was addressed as Mr. there would be no problem. The problem is, giving one man a title because he is the man in charge clearly goes against Jesus' command not to call any man our guide or leader, being translated master in the KJV.
Tell me, if a WCG "minister" was in a casual conversation with a younger female member who had a PhD do you honestly think he'd address her as Dr.?
The WCG tradition has been so ingrained in us that we see using it for the "minister" as perfectly fine, we balk when someone points out that Jesus said not to call any man your spiritual leader for God is your leader.
The Pharisees often balked when confronted by Jesus. Are we going to follow traditions, as the Pharisees did, or are we going to obey Jesus?
Who is your spiritual leader?
Kevin
Moderator, I see that my use of the word "balls" is not allowed for what ever reason. Would gonads have been better? Is there something wrong with balls or gonads? I thought they were a fact of life. Oh well. 😁
Kevin
"You people think you are smart but you are dumb."
I see that you lack the courage to sign your post. Maybe you can ask the wizard for more courage. Just follow the yellow brick road.
Kevin
Kevin
Are you the one walking into the opera house in jeans all the time........
I mean, it is ok to have a sense of decorum.
And to you, young master RSK........
"My dad can beat up your dad!"
Go wash your mouth or I will tell Mr Johnson what you said.
btw I recently found my father's plane tickets in the attic from when he was a young boy on a long distance flight.
It said MASTER .......so and so. The kid was only 15.
I second BB on the language shift.
I did pass my "olde english" exams at university, very interesting to see how the danes, saxons, french, romans all influenced the language until Shakespeare and King James tied it all together. I do remember the world "Lord" deriving from "Loaf Ward", or "the one that is to divide the bread".
I don't know Kevin, if HWA was on a first name basis with Golda (Meir), Maggie, Lisa (Noor) or if he did talk shoes with Imelda. I think on the "Little Ambassors from Shanghai" video most of the Chinese female representatives are referred to as DR Lin Shuao etc. But hey in China he was at an advantage as the elderly person.
nck
Kevin
I don't think the word "balls" is the problem.
Perhaps you mistyped an I where an A was due when you stated that "anonymous lacked the balls." The decorum is in the details and sometimes two letters like Mr make all the difference.
nck
Why is it when discussing a biblical topic everyone seems to be hung up on the english word and it's usage?
Debating the change in language over time was not my original intent. I never once denied that language meanings change over time.
This is why I specifically said the Greek word transliterated (not paraphrased, oh so smart BB) master in the KJV meant guide or leader. Meaning someone that one looks to for direction. Jesus clearly said that job was God's!
That's doesn't mean that we can't listen to what a man has to say, consider the advice based upon what our true leader says in His Word, and follow it.
We in the WCG, and today in most splinters have delegated men to follow, replacing God.
All this debate over what master, mister, gay etc. meant in the past is just to muddy the subject of what is clear. We are not to give men religious titles and that's what is being done when the only man in a conversation after services is called Mr. is the "minister".
Kevin
"I don't know Kevin, if HWA was on a first name basis with Golda (Meir), Maggie, Lisa (Noor) or if he did talk shoes with Imelda."
Who cares? We're not discussing whether or not to call a Dr. doctor, or your lawyer Mr. At least I wasn't. Ignorant people have twisted the subject to that, the original statement that I clearly made was that in a religious, spiritual setting we're not to elevate any one man, or even group of men over others. We are brethren.
That's what was done in the WCG with the "ministerial" class, and it's still being done today in the splinters.
It's not that difficult to understand people.
Keep up!
Kevin
I really hate to do this but I have to apologize to Bob Byker, I was wrong, it's not transliterated it is translated.
Transliterate as I'm sure you know, and I knew when I posted is to use english letters in place of the Greek letters. I don't know why I wrote that, the older I get the more brain farts that I have.
Kevin
"Are you the one walking into the opera house in jeans all the time........
I mean, it is ok to have a sense of decorum."
Really? Is that where this discussion has gone, thinking that I don't believe in calling Professionals or even a casual acquaintance Dr., Mr. or Sir? That I don't show respect? Wow!
I've plainly said that we should show respect to all, and then I'm misrepresented as being someone lacking decorum? Even if it was in jest, it shows the incorrect preconceived ideas different people get when reading plain posts, misinterpreted because of their bias.
Interesting how the minds of people work, or don't work.
FYI forget the opera house, I always dress up. I even wear suits to church but occasionally jeans and even shorts.
No, it's not uncouth to believe that we are all brothers in the church and that elevated titles in the church for so called religious leaders is in direct disobedience to Jesus!
Kevin
Kevin
You"re a good guy. I'm looking forward to hear more from you in the future.
btw Shorts to church? In my biased world I imagine you in the Caribean or Hawai, Trinidad, Belize. But I'm a bit warped.
Nck
"btw Shorts to church? In my biased world I imagine you in the Caribean or Hawai, Trinidad, Belize. But I'm a bit warped."
Thanks nck, and I realize that many of your comments were made in jest(Dick/Mr. Dick), but elevating anyone over another in the church is just evil and it continues to this day, this is why I take it so seriously.
A person won't fall for the b.s. if they realize that God doesn't play favorites in the church. Israel's government was a completely different situation than today.
Do you know of any priest paying tithes on his increase?
Yeah, the Levites has to give the sons of Aaron 10% of what they received, but to say that was them paying tithes is a stretch.
That being so, why would the "royal priesthood" have to pay tithes? To be consistent they would be receiving the tithe not paying.
Abram paid tithes on the spoils of war. There is no evidence that he paid any other time. In fact, biblical evidence shows that Abram didn't teach his grandson Jacob that tithing was a law, if he had then Jacob wouldn't have brokered a deal with God "bless me and then I'll give you a tenth". That's like telling God, "bless me and I won't steal from my neighbor".
Hate to spoil your visions of me laying on a beach drinking a ""be fruitful and multiply" on the beach", but I'm from WV.
Also, God doesn't play favorites in the world either. I'm no better than anyone worshipping Buddah, or keeping Christmas this December.
I believe God's calling people in this world is more of a curse than a blessing, not really but physically speaking it is.
Don't get me wrong when I say this, I'm in no way wishing to do any of what I'm about to point out, in fact it would be easy just to give in, but.....I have a friend who is with a different woman almost every month, can eat all the pork bacon that he wants, can lie, steal and cheat to get ahead. That fellow will be in God's kingdom one day and I say great. Hell, I hope Adolph Hitler is eventually saved. The world we live in is a bitch, we have it made here and even sometimes it's tough for us.
There has to be more to this life than eat, drink and be merry for if there isn't, honestly it's not worth it.
Oh well, that's enough I really have to get to work.
Kevin
"That fellow will be in God's kingdom one day and I say great."
Yessir, my prodigal son from WV.
nck
"
btw I recently found my father's plane tickets in the attic from when he was a young boy on a long distance flight.
It said MASTER .......so and so. The kid was only 15."
I have heard that before too in occasional use, addressing young men as "Master" in formal terms while adult men were addressed/referred to as "Mister". Its apparently uncommon now.
Yes RSK.
Kevin has seen that my contention was in jest.
Otherwise I would have taken him down the rabbit hole of the movie "Master and Commander, Far side of the world", where Midshipman William Blakeney 15 years old is to be saluted, respected and obeyed and adressed as Master.
Kevin knows I'm kidding again, although I do remember that the shipcaptains in my family were by law allowed to perform duties on board that were otherwise delegated to the realm of the clergy.
I hope I'm not making anyone's head spin, with this "hybrid clergy :-)" example from olden days.
Nck
People should study the IQ problem. Large parts of the world have a depressingly low IQ. No wonder they are a mess.
Post a Comment