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
Have you ever noticed how women in the church were always the ones being picked on and maligned? Never mind the fact the ministry in Pasadena was corrupt to the core, it was still the women's fault.
Graphic:SHT
15 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Men would have been spiritually pure if Eve had not appeared on the scene and lied. Ever since then women have led the church astray and feminized the ministry. Just look at Bob Thiel and Gerald Weston. Could there be two more feminized men than these two?
I don't know 11:04. After 6000 years all men would still have been vegetarians since most animals would have been extinct. Imagine living on a planet with 6 billion people wearing dirty socks.
The verse quoted by HWA was taken from a LETTER purported to have been written by the Apostle Paul (if it was actually written by him, it was dictated to another individual as indicated by its style and language) that was addressed to someone named Titus, who was apparently prominent within the Christian Church of the First Century. Even if we accept this personal letter as being inspired (directed/influenced by the Holy Spirit), it is ridiculous to characterize it as THE WORD OF GOD. It is obviously a work that applies to people and circumstances extant in the First Century. Notice the instructions about SLAVES just a few lines after the passage quoted by HWA: "Slaves must always obey their masters and do their best to please them. They must not talk back or steal, but must show themselves to be entirely trustworthy and good." What relevance does that have to the 21st Century? How can anyone argue that this should be regarded as a universal principle that is applicable to all times and places? Moreover, if we look at the other letters attributed to Paul, it is clear that the author(s) of these discourses were conflicted about the proper role of woman within the Church. In the first epistle addressed to Timothy, we read that "women should learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them." Nevertheless, in the second epistle addressed to this same person, the author praises Timothy's grandmother and mother as the sources of his faith in Christ! In other words, it was inappropriate for HWA to use this passage to browbeat women within the church. And, just for the record, the Bible is NOT God! One can blaspheme God, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to blaspheme a personal letter written in the First Century!
No Eve ever "appeared on the scene and lied". That is mythological tale weaving for the very purpose of demeaning and dethroning women in the Israelite culture. 2000 years later it still haunts minister and member alike who are motivated by their fears, guilts and shame based lives.
Also, never forget it is the Bible these and all fundamentalist and evangelical types quote to back up their suppression of women and promotion of accepted and unacceptable role models for men and women. There are plenty of scriptures available for the purpose. Ultimately, it is the Bible itself and the admonitions and examples in it that is the culprit in just about everything that men like Flurry, Pack, Thiel and Weinland promote or demand of their followers.
And it didn't matter if the husband was a paranoid schitzophrenic or a sexual pervert or a closet gay. The woman was expected to obey him without question, to defend him even if he was in the wrong, and to do her duties no matter how she felt. And yes, everything was her fault. I speak from many years of sad experience.
Oh, yes! I remember whenever I found out that we were going to be listening to a taped sermon by HWA, I'd sit there waiting, with a knot in my stomach, for the anti-female comment(s) from him, and it was always (as far as I recall)included!
They NEVER would've gotten away with all this crap with my dear old Grammy...she would've gone "toe to toe", eyeball to eyeball, with them etc. She was especially HARD on the JWs that tried to "cow" her. They'd put their tails between their legs & quietly slink away when she got done with them, etc.
This is not an unconditional statement from Paul. Like all generalizations , there are going to be lots of exceptions.
NO ONE has to "obey" unlawful orders, or frankly , stupid or unwise ones either. The old German Nazie excuse of "I was just following orders" has been tried in International Court, and found to be NOT AN EXCUSE for behavior. This goes in a marriage, male or female, job, church, or wherever.
The old bumper sticker "Question Authority", should always be the standard.
9.11 AM Old grannies can get away with behavior that would not be tolerated from men. It's the taboo on hitting women (except Rod), especially old women.
I don't blindly follow any church or my husband, I don't "just do what he says". If a man wanted someone who always "obeyed" then they would marry the dog. A wife can not be a help meet unless she takes her proper place beside him, not behind him. Problems arise when he says do what I say regardless of the consequences and does not respect her enough to truly listen when she has something to say.
I tried to use the church’s family principles on my wife and children, and they didn’t work. Some of the more mature in the faith advised that I was forgetting the key element of pain compliance. At that point, I had to reject much of it and search for better methodology. Just too repulsive!
15 comments:
Men would have been spiritually pure if Eve had not appeared on the scene and lied. Ever since then women have led the church astray and feminized the ministry. Just look at Bob Thiel and Gerald Weston. Could there be two more feminized men than these two?
11:04
I don't know 11:04.
After 6000 years all men would still have been vegetarians since most animals would have been extinct. Imagine living on a planet with 6 billion people wearing dirty socks.
nck
And again HWA is 100 percent right on the mark.
Women should be chaste discreet keepers at home, a 100 percent.
When partying, outside, shopping, or managing Hewlett Packard, it could be a completely different ball game.
nck
Actually, Satan was the one who lied, not Eve.
The verse quoted by HWA was taken from a LETTER purported to have been written by the Apostle Paul (if it was actually written by him, it was dictated to another individual as indicated by its style and language) that was addressed to someone named Titus, who was apparently prominent within the Christian Church of the First Century. Even if we accept this personal letter as being inspired (directed/influenced by the Holy Spirit), it is ridiculous to characterize it as THE WORD OF GOD.
It is obviously a work that applies to people and circumstances extant in the First Century. Notice the instructions about SLAVES just a few lines after the passage quoted by HWA: "Slaves must always obey their masters and do their best to please them. They must not talk back or steal, but must show themselves to be entirely trustworthy and good." What relevance does that have to the 21st Century? How can anyone argue that this should be regarded as a universal principle that is applicable to all times and places?
Moreover, if we look at the other letters attributed to Paul, it is clear that the author(s) of these discourses were conflicted about the proper role of woman within the Church. In the first epistle addressed to Timothy, we read that "women should learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them." Nevertheless, in the second epistle addressed to this same person, the author praises Timothy's grandmother and mother as the sources of his faith in Christ!
In other words, it was inappropriate for HWA to use this passage to browbeat women within the church. And, just for the record, the Bible is NOT God! One can blaspheme God, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to blaspheme a personal letter written in the First Century!
I can see why women go screw around behind their husband's back.
No Eve ever "appeared on the scene and lied". That is mythological tale weaving for the very purpose of demeaning and dethroning women in the Israelite culture. 2000 years later it still haunts minister and member alike who are motivated by their fears, guilts and shame based lives.
Also, never forget it is the Bible these and all fundamentalist and evangelical types quote to back up their suppression of women and promotion of accepted and unacceptable role models for men and women. There are plenty of scriptures available for the purpose. Ultimately, it is the Bible itself and the admonitions and examples in it that is the culprit in just about everything that men like Flurry, Pack, Thiel and Weinland promote or demand of their followers.
And it didn't matter if the husband was a paranoid schitzophrenic or a sexual pervert or a closet gay. The woman was expected to obey him without question, to defend him even if he was in the wrong, and to do her duties no matter how she felt. And yes, everything was her fault. I speak from many years of sad experience.
I have concluded that the fact HWA ever existed was Loma's fault.
Oh, yes! I remember whenever I found out that we were going to be listening to a taped sermon by HWA, I'd sit there waiting, with a knot in my stomach, for the anti-female comment(s) from him, and it was always (as far as I recall)included!
Meighen
They NEVER would've gotten away with all this crap with my dear old Grammy...she would've gone
"toe to toe", eyeball to eyeball, with them etc. She was especially HARD on the JWs that tried
to "cow" her. They'd put their tails between their legs & quietly slink away when she got done
with them, etc.
This is not an unconditional statement from Paul. Like all generalizations , there are going to be lots of exceptions.
NO ONE has to "obey" unlawful orders, or frankly , stupid or unwise ones either. The old German Nazie excuse of "I was just following orders" has been tried in International Court, and found to be NOT AN EXCUSE for behavior. This goes in a marriage, male or female, job, church, or wherever.
The old bumper sticker "Question Authority", should always be the standard.
9.11 AM
Old grannies can get away with behavior that would not be tolerated from men. It's the taboo on hitting women (except Rod), especially old women.
I don't blindly follow any church or my husband, I don't "just do what he says". If a man wanted someone who always "obeyed" then they would marry the dog. A wife can not be a help meet unless she takes her proper place beside him, not behind him. Problems arise when he says do what I say regardless of the consequences and does not respect her enough to truly listen when she has something to say.
I tried to use the church’s family principles on my wife and children, and they didn’t work. Some of the more mature in the faith advised that I was forgetting the key element of pain compliance. At that point, I had to reject much of it and search for better methodology. Just too repulsive!
Post a Comment