Armstrongism, Atheism and Their Shared Predicate
“They never stop, these Stepford wives. They something something all their lives. Work like robots. Yes, that would fit. They work like robots all their lives.”
There is a striking commonality between Atheism and Armstrongism beyond the fact that they are both belief systems. Though they may be antithetical in their larger purposes, the intersection between these two systems is to be found in their shared anthropology. In short, both philosophies paradoxically deprecate the value of human beings. Their deprecation is paradoxical because atheists often tout an impoverished form of humanism. And Armstrongism is highly dependent on human resources for financial viability. Humans, the objects of their diminishment, are pivotal to both.
In Brief: The Atheistic Materialist Perspective on Humanity
Materialism recognizes nothing beyond the material realm. It is typical for atheists to adopt materialism as their explanation of reality. This seems to be a natural pairing. The Universe to the materialist is a place of physical objects and forces where the credo is written in terms from physics and chemistry and other hard sciences. Anything that transcends the physical is outside its purview and is denied.
Materialism diminishes human beings to an accumulation of atoms and molecules. Consciousness and thoughts, without any compelling rationale, are believed to be merely swarms of chemical reactions. Humans are thought to be biobots, a kind of biological machine - a pleonastic fallacy. And the frequent appeal to analogy is that the human mind is like a computer. This comparison is inapt because non-thinking computers are programmed and operated by human minds. If we are to go by the physical evidence alone, a comparison of our brain anatomy with that of our primate cousins would indicate that we should be only a little smarter than chimpanzees. Our excess of sentience is enormous.
But if a human is just a biological machine that means that he may be repaired, modified, corrected, repurposed and made to march to the drum of someone else’s intellectual pretensions. To the atheist who is truly committed to the purity of materialism, the faunal human has no dignity. If someone claims that atheism does not deprecate humanity, that person needs to recognize the impact of mechanistic materialism on society: racism, control of lives, brainwashing, sterilizations, eugenics, compassionless survival-of-the-fittest social principles and humans as an impersonal resource.
In Brief: The Armstrongist Perspective on Humanity
While Armstrongism does not present us with a documented systematic philosophy or a systematic theology, we may induce its attitudes towards human beings by examining practice in regard to the common lay member. For example:
1. Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA), based on his own words, had a low view of the lay membership of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). HWA saw them, principally through tithing, as little impersonal moving parts of a great machine called “The Work.” He was the steersman of this great machine. For example, he one time told the congregations that if they did not help him in doing “The Work”, God would raise up stones to replace them (a mishandling of Luke 19:40). In other words, they were easily replaceable, like mechanical parts, and their humanity, salvation and theotic potential was not a concern.
2. Robots require programming or they will be inert. The programming imposed on church members included Old Testament regulations, New Testament regulations and denominational regulations and norms. This legalism was like a stringent set of internal programs that made the biobots function as desired and curtailed deemed undesirable behavior, all at the expense of their humanity.
3. The highly structured caste system of the WCG was also a means of diminishing people to the status of mechanistic modules. Each module plugged into a carefully defined port in the great machine. And each module recognized its immutable boundaries – the protocols for mechanistic operation and the attendant loss of human value.
Thesis and Antithesis
Armstrongism and atheism are alike and unalike. Unlike atheism, Armstrongism seeks to cloak itself in Christianity. Unlike Armstrongism, atheism seeks to cloak itself inaptly in the august nobility of the scientific method. Where they are both alike, the point of synthesis, is in their debasing humanity to the level of the utilitarian machine. In the case of Armstrongism this is done by treating people like “cogs in a wheel” to induce a backflow of money and in the case of atheism this is done by relegating people to the status of mindless biobots so they can be, I suspect, controlled. Whatever the purposes, whether apparent or inapparent, the dreadful impact is the same: the loss of the human and the formation of the soulless android.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
Consciousness of one entity or precept immediately makes one aware of the opposite of that entity or precept. Polarity exists throughout the universe, and the human mind forms or perceives the link between the two. Yin and Yang.
ReplyDeleteBB
We have an enormous predisposition and capacity to compare and contrast things - it's the way our minds work. As Byker Bob suggested, we are very likely to perceive the polarity that exists around us. We are not so good at sorting out the space between those two extremes, and where we personally fit into them.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the most obvious example in this instance is the moral general one of theist vs atheist. Even so, it is important to remember that there are many different degrees and kinds of both extremes in this instance. Truly, in the real world, one size does not fit all.
In this regard, I'm more interested in the folks at (or near) both extremes who are convinced that the conclusions which they have arrived at are irrefutable, and that others must be convinced that they are the only right ones. In other words, as I've stated in past posts on my own blog - I'm interested in the folks who (for whatever reason) feel compelled to evangelize.
We would all do well to remember too that not all atheists (or those who choose to associate themselves with that moniker) are materialists - I've known some atheists who are more spiritual than many of the theists I've known. Likewise, being a theist doesn't guarantee greater empathy, compassion or love of others. As with some of our racial attitudes, we have a tendency to develop stereotypes that are often far removed from the reality on the ground.
Second paragraph: I wanted "more general" NOT "moral general"
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isV9hWXpNjc
ReplyDeleteAaron Ra gives his criticism of David Pack.
I found him in my search for material to cover both sides of intelligent design and evolution.
As a caveat, I would reemphasize that I believe safety and balance are not achieved (in most polar situations) by sitting on either of the poles. The narrow path where the pull from either pole is cancelled by the other is generally the sweet spot. Neutral ph, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteBB
I have not seen an atheist posting on these boards. So their side will not be heard here. But I have seen many anti-theists and mesotheists.
ReplyDeleteAn atheist has no motivation to argue about nonexistence just like I have no motivation to argue with Pastafarians about the nonexistence of the great spaghetti monster in the sky.
People who cloke themselves in the veneer of atheism but spread the message of anti-theists and mesotheists are liars and tricksters.
Darwin was a racist and without God there is no moral authority accept your own personal one. And that means the moral majority view will rule. Pedophiles will come to be accepted in society and the laws against it will be considered archaic like those against homosexuals. Atheists will have no moral basis to argue against it and they won't. Anti-theists and mesotheists will make a show of caring because they know god exits and are ashamed, but only for awhile.
The world will crumble not because of hucksters like Herbert Armstrong or atheists. But because of anti-theists and mesotheists who hate God and want it all to fall apart. But they won't see it that way because they lie to themselves about who they really are like they lie to others about who they are.
There is already no moral authority except your own. Even theists ignore what "God" says and do what they think is right. If it was clear what God thought was moral, you wouldn't have hundreds of Christian denominations arguing about nearly every moral question there is to discuss.
DeleteBB says ". The narrow path where the pull from either pole is cancelled by the other is generally the sweet spot. Neutral ph, so to speak."
ReplyDeleteI believe we'd call that "sitting on the fence"? "Torn between two lovers"? "Stuck between a rock and a hard place"? "Halting between two opinions"? "double minded man"? James 1:8,
"sh... or get off the pot"?
Nope. It’s a third alternative all its own, with its own set of characteristics, a spot where you are not required to choose between two extremes. Powerful extremists want you to choose between one of two poles, and even ridicule the opposite side. Most folks actually do gravitate towards the middle politically. I’ve oft stated that there is no political party serving my interests and needs, so I generally vote in a manner that restrains either agenda if I feel it has gained too much headway.
DeleteBB
Other mammals have self Consciousness also - truly a great feat of computer science, probably achieved using quantum computing (given the slowness of nerve signaling.) Same with vast memory - essential for a well functioning android - probably achieved using exotic holographic quantum computing, at least 100 years ahead of man's awkward 'Von Neumann' information processing architecture we're familiar with.
ReplyDeleteI was for fun watching the "Life of Brian" scene where way back on row 54 at the sermon of the mount, some people are wondering why "the cheesemakers should be blessed."
ReplyDeleteThen a for sure wise man responds in mild demeanor. "This is not to be taken literally but metaphorically, it must refer to all dairy producers."
Nck
Blogger Byker Bob said... "Nope. It’s a third alternative all its own, with its own set of characteristics, a spot where you are not required to choose between two extremes. Powerful extremists want you to choose between one of two poles, and even ridicule the opposite side. Most folks actually do gravitate towards the middle politically. I’ve oft stated that there is no political party serving my interests and needs, so I generally vote in a manner that restrains either agenda if I feel it has gained too much headway."
ReplyDeleteRight on BB! ;-) Living in a country where compulsory voting is in place some have criticized me for holding to a similar viewpoint. They tell me you have to vote for "tweedledum" or "tweedledee" and "the lesser of two evils" or when they're afraid of the opposing party's policies "It's better the devil you know than the devil you don't." I simply tell them at times I prefer to cast a donkey vote or protest vote and so refuse to vote at all for either side. They look at me as if I've come up with something totally radical! Then using the sayings they've quoted to me I help them look at it from my perspective ie Isn't the lesser of 2 evils still evil? and Why do I have to choose a devil at all? Can't we remove the devils out of the equation so we're not always voting for devils? Some finally begin to see my point (being so politically apathetic nowadays as we are) funnily enough and are usually empowered to do likewise next time :-)
Biker Bob
ReplyDeleteYou aren't fooling anyone. You aren't neutral. There is no such thing is real neutrality everyone takes a side always. You are deceiving yourself if you think you are neutral.
You have a belief and that puts you on one side of any argument against that belief. The only true neutral is to not have any thoughts at all.
Maybe many people are ashamed of their beliefs or are trying to portray themselves as righteous by pretending to be neutral.
The worst people in the bible were the ones that pretended to be one thing they weren't.
11:29 ~ you get it! Good on you!
DeleteAs for 12:22, what I described is an ideal, perhaps something none of us can ever fully attain in life. It is a state to strive for so that others don’t control us. Obviously there are always going to be times when as individuals we must take a stand or hold our ground, even if it is to maintain our neutrality while the people on both opposite poles attempt to conscript us.
One of the worst aspects of the old WCG was that there was only black and white, and no negotiation. One of the most vital skills in life is negotiation, and it was not permitted or taught. This is why even people who left Armstrongism decades ago are still binary thinkers. As a matter of fact, whether you realized it or not, your entire comment was binary. You even saw fit to correct the spelling of my screen name! Nice.
Negotiation is based on finding the common ground which we all share as humans living on planet Earth. Finding that common ground does not constitute pretending. It is just a matter of acknowledging parts of our personalities that are already there, rather than repressing them to harden ourselves and make our discussions binary.
BB
PS, the center, or neutral position is the only vantage point from which you can see both opposing poles clearly. In other words, it's the only place where you can see the total picture.
ReplyDeleteBB
Byker Bob,
ReplyDeleteI think you like the idea of being right or even righteous, but simply rejecting what you consider to be bad ideas. Now consider that since you have to have ideas and choices, there is no such thing as non-choice, you are on the wrong side of something.
Everything is black and white to someone, even to you, to claim that black and white is somehow evil/wrong is a black and white idea, and it's hypocritical to accuse others in the same breath of about viewing things black and white.
Please provide an example where you can demonstrate a religious belief that does not end up in a black/white conclusion for someone.
Nice rhetoric, 4:12, but it appears that you are in search of a greater concept. The law behind the law is the Royal Law of Love. It is at the center, and perfectly balanced. The laws and dos and don'ts of the Bible are the knowledge of good and evil, which came into incremental play following the fall of mankind in the garden of Eden. Before these laws were necessary, a perfectly balanced system was in play.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall who said it, but one time, a political commentator to whom I listened opined that the political spectrum, left and right, was actually a circle, and that if you travelled far enough around that circle, the views of the extreme left would eventually become the views of the extreme right, and vice versa. The logic by which these positions were reached, however, and methodology of implementing solutions, were completely different.
FYI, I don't consider myself to be right or righteous. I try to keep everything in balance, unlike the ways in which we lived in the old Armstrongite days when we practiced keeping picked and chosen laws to the extreme of excluding and or hurting others, or at the very least, making those who were unfortunate enough to be close to us into our codependents.
The commandment to love one another (John 13:34-35) is a big and expansive concept, and practical application becomes a function of the human mind. Those who would attempt to follow that command (not all do), with the knowledge of good and evil that came with the fall, will parse and further define it, and perhaps add their own personal code to it, expecting others to do the same. However, well-intentioned humans can often find themselves working at counter-purpose to one another, not because either are wrong, but because they have different goals or needs. This is the source of many human clashes, and even wars. The propensity to think and teach in terms of black and white, and not to see the shades of gray, is the root of most of the world's problems today.
BB
Byker Bob,
ReplyDeleteWho determines what the definition of "balance" is, you? The more you try to portray your personal views on morality, the more clear you make it you think your definition is the right one.
Where the bible is clear, even one sin is causes someone to be worthy of death.
HWA was a sinner and he was wrong, but your justifications sound just like his.
Alright, you just proved that this isn't a serious discussion. I'm not in the habit of portraying or espousing any personal views, be they ethical, moral, or philosophical that I believe are wrong. Only a troll would do that, for the purpose of baiting someone.
ReplyDeleteYes, sin brings on the death penalty. We're very fortunate that Jesus' work on the cross at Calvary paid for mankind's past, present, and future sin debts.
HWA was downright arrogant about his sins, leading his successors to take them as license, since "God's Apostle" did such and such. Rod Meredith actually went so far as to state that he never committed a major sin following his baptism. I try not to make their same mistake.
Unfortunately, the truth is a stray thought passing through our minds is sin. Anyone who says that they do not sin regularly every single day is a liar. I have never had any problem confessing that I am a sinner.
Regardless as to your intentions, some valuable lessons have come out of our discussion anyway!🍒
BB
Byker Bob,
ReplyDeleteI will make my intentions clear. I am pointing out that you have put yourself on a pedistal above others on this board by preaching your religion of balance. But since balance doesn't actually exist, it's your own version of black and white.
While at the same time you castigate others for their black and white views.
Herbert Armstrong castigated others for doing the exact same thing he did.
The value of these discussions is not always to share why you are right, but also to hear when you are wrong.
And if you wish to say I am wrong for saying you are wrong, well that is your prerogative. But at least my intentions are perfectly clear. No one wants a repeat of Herbert Armstrong's mess.
I'm going to let you have the last word on that, 1:43. We'll let the greater audience of the blog draw their own conclusions. I could regurgitate and cite some of my old comments on societal norms, mala in se and mala prohibita, Noahchide Law and the Jerusalem Council, and the fact that Noahchide law seems to be written into the hearts of all those who have governed civilized nations for the last 2,000 years, but it's not going to go anywhere.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead and call me HWA, if you must. I'm beyond caring.
BB
Byker Bob,
ReplyDeleteSaying balance is the ideal is a black and white statement. The fact that you can't see your own hypocrisy in this is you acting like HWA.
Saying Byker Bob is teaching a false religion by promoting balance is about as dumb as the people who accuse atheists of having an atheist religion.
Delete