NEO noted in a recent post: A Darkness in the Armstrongist Heart: Blackwellian White Supremacy
"Error in Translation
“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.”
"This was interpreted by Blackwell to mean that God organized the nations in order to allocate them to the oversight of the “sons of Israel.” This was not just a transient, temporal plan but would extend into eternity.
The problem is, this scripture does not say that. It instead refers not to the “sons of Israel” but to the “sons of god.” The full passage speaks of “El” and “Yahweh” and the “sons of god.” The nations were to be parceled out by El to the “sons of god” and Yahweh was to receive Jacob’s descendants from El as his portion in this process. The Masoretic translators altered this to read “the sons of Israel” to expunge anything that would seem to even hint at polytheism (see Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8
and the Sons of God” and also Peter Enns’ interview with Mark Smith entitled “Who is Yahweh and Where Did Yahweh Come From?” both available on the web.) Heiser concludes:
The problem is, this scripture does not say that. It instead refers not to the “sons of Israel” but to the “sons of god.” The full passage speaks of “El” and “Yahweh” and the “sons of god.” The nations were to be parceled out by El to the “sons of god” and Yahweh was to receive Jacob’s descendants from El as his portion in this process. The Masoretic translators altered this to read “the sons of Israel” to expunge anything that would seem to even hint at polytheism (see Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8
and the Sons of God” and also Peter Enns’ interview with Mark Smith entitled “Who is Yahweh and Where Did Yahweh Come From?” both available on the web.) Heiser concludes:
“In light of the evidence there exists no textual or theological justification for preferring the Masoretic reading of verse 8. That verse should read "sons of God," not "sons of Israel."
In April of 2011 this same enigmatic scripture came to my attention with all its implications. Biblical scholars have always wondered how this scripture ever made the cut and was included in the Book of Deuteronomy. I would think the implications of other divine beings as the "sons of god" or as others translate it, "to the number of the gods" which is that classic "uni-plural" Elohim HWA always got wrong.
"An interesting and surprisingly blunt admission of this multiplicity of gods is found in Deut. 32:8-9
“When the Most High (Elyon) apportioned the nations, when he divided human kind, he fixed the boundaries of his peoples according TO THE NUMBER OF THE GODS. (Elohim). The Lord’s (YHVH a lesser god than Elyon) own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.”
Here we have a rare and somewhat embarrassing admission that there was a god even higher than YHVH. The Most High was Elyon who had the authority to divvy up the nations between the other lesser gods. In this account YHVH is a lesser god who was placed over the limited geographical area inhabited by Jacob. This is why it was always well understood that the power of the god diminished the further away from its allotted land. If they strayed too far, they qualified as “foreign gods,” which we all know were powerless in the new areas and definitely false. You know, “My God is the true god, and …well…your’s is the Satan, or lesser and powerless god around here. “
So we learn that YHVH and YHVH Elohim may have several implications. This can mean that YHVH is the god over a band of lesser gods or that YHVH is a god that comes from a class of gods known as Elohim."
The implications of this scripture when correctly translated are:
1. Polytheism and the belief in many other real gods was a common view held by the people of Israel as well as the surrounding nations.
2. El, who was originally the supreme Canaanite God was co-opted by the Israelites as their own Supreme God with all the associated traits. "El" was a common suffix in the language. Isra-el, Dani-el, Beth-el, Immanu-el, etc)
3. In time, El, evolved into YHVH with all the previous associated traits of El. This is how the Priests of Israel and writers of the Pentateuch work such transformations in print. YHVH also took on the powers of Baal. (The Original Weather God Bob)
Exodus 6:3 may be translated:
4. In time, YHVH was more commonly understood in the English world as "The Lord"
5. In a bit more time, "The Lord" evolved into Jesus of the New Testament.
The literary evolution of God from the Canaanite EL and his Counsel of the gods, or the "US" of "Let us make man in our image..." etc, where YHVH was a lesser god just appointed over Israel (Chemosh over the Moabites and "The Satan" or Lucifer as a lesser god, with YHVH, in the Council as well becoming the bad boy, should be disturbing enough to the COG membership and ministry. Add to this YHVH usurping EL as now supreme, becoming "The Lord" of their Bibles and ultimately Jesus should give them pause for thought on just how this all evolved from the common polytheism of Israel where the other gods were very real to monotheism and Jesus.
How Trinitarian Christianity is monotheistic is another muddle the explanations for which also evolved over the past 2000 years to accommodate the problems caused by the concept.
When "the Lord thy God", already as YHVH replacing El said, "You shall have no other gods before me, for I the Lord YOUR God am a jealous God," He wasn't kidding.
It is better rendered "You shall not bring any other gods (and there were plenty considered real and powerful in their own appointed territory) into my presence, for (BECAUSE) I, the Lord YOUR God am a jealous God." Understood as such makes much more sense as to why the other gods were not welcome and eventually had to be ousted in the minds of the people, to this day. YHVH had a jealous streak.
I believe this reality of scripture and the actual beliefs of "the Chosen People" should indeed bother Armstrongists as well as a whole lot of other folk.
A more complete discussion of this enigmatic scripture and the realities of this evolution and transformation of the gods in the scriptures can be found here:
A History of Polytheism in Israel
47 comments:
"EL GOD" ???... I flunked high school spanish, so Im a bit confused!
Why should it bother Armstrongists?
When the movie "Highlander" (there can be only one) broke in the eighties I developed a private theory that there might have been 7 "gods" before 2 were left after epic struggle as portrayed in Highlander.
Of course my mind was blurred since I had an incredible crush on Heather. Man she was beautiful.
Speaking about Heather.......Dennis what about the female consort of the El's?? I'm looking forward to that installment as it might cause havoc on this blog.
I was aware of the concept through Von Daeniken who talked about the Annunaki from out there planting humans on earth. Outrageous theories, yet as a polytheistic armstrongite I was aware of the Bible scriptures talking plural as in God's.
Are we ready for harvest yet?? The big fall harvest..... Let's storm area 51. Harharhar.
Nck
DD:
On the whole I agree with what you have written. There is some shading that I would disagree with. Based on what I have researched to date:
1. The Ancient Israelites (reflected in pre-Exilic Biblical texts) were not monotheistic but monolotrous. They believe that Yahweh was a god among other gods. The interesting issue is that god let them evolve from monolotry to monotheism over a very long time.
2. It is not clear that El is a Canaanite god. Just because the first written record mentioning El is found among the Canaanites or Midianites does not mean that this is the point and time of origin. If it could be established that the Canaanites did know El first, it would be an indication that god had engaged other tribes in this same area prior to the arrival of Israel. There is the reference to Melchizedek.
3. At one point in scripture (Deut 32:8-9), El and Yahweh seem to be two beings and later Yahweh reveals himself as El (Ex 6:3). This is explainable by mapping the Trinitarian doctrine of god onto these passages and considering that these are not just names but also epithets. And Christ revealed himself as being subordinate to the Father.
4. One of the great accomplishments of Christ's crucifixion was the vanquishing of Thrones, Principalities and Powers. This I believe is connected to the "sons of god" from Deuteronomy 32. (There is some numerology from Jewish tradition here. There are supposed to be 70 angelic beings on the council and 70 nations mentioned in Genesis 10.)
Armstrongists are bitheistic. I am not sure how they would react to this.
Absolutely no surprise to me. I've often said that if there is a family of beings called El or YHWH that there are probably billions, trillions or more. That we've only been told of two, or have we? Carl Franklin of Fred Coulter fame long ago wrote a publication titled the Two Jehovahs of the Psalms. How do we know there are only two? I know of many McMillens in my family.
Call me a polytheist, I haven't cared about that for a long time.
Unitarian, Binitarian, Trinitarian, or a poly-multi-whatever-tarian that one wills, I don't care. 😀
Kevin
or..."sons of God" refers to the men who were of God, a position Israel saw themselves in.
remember Shem?
As I recall, elohim was also applied to Nimrod and other men. It was applied to "powerful men". So the land was separated according to the powerful men (that presumably led tribes/clans). Also applied to angels. Another thing HWA was wrong about.
Dennis, for me, this is the most important post I have ever seen from you or anyone else on this website. With the attached audio recording, you provide a believable, succinct explanation of how the Bible was manufactured and how Muslims, Jews and Christians came to believe in one god (three in one for most Christians).
I had always accepted the Bible as the word of God until 2005 when I began reading "Misquoting Jesus", "Lost Christianities" and "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". I discovered that the Holy Bible was not fully canonized until 367 CE in Carthage, North Africa, and finally approved by Rome in 393 CE. The Codex Sinaiticus was approved by a vote of men. At that point I began to question everything I had been taught about religion.
To me, the Old Testament was a hodgepodge of mythical stories about very flawed men, mixed with outbursts from an angry, violent god. Your post gives me a clearer understanding of why the Old Testament pages are so difficult to value. Those Israelite Elders who wrote and re-wrote the OT scriptures surely had their hands full trying to keep their stories straight and control their tribes. I'm quite sure they never considered that their contrivances would one day become a significant part of the Holy Bible.
Imagine all the investigative time spent trying to understand Scripture that could have been put to better use. I was under the influence of Armstrongism for thirteen years. I am happy to say I escaped in 1973, not a year too soon. In 2005 I discarded Christianity as another false religion. I am also skeptical of atheism, as it too may fall into the category of a false religion. If I can keep an open mind, I may continue to learn. A closed mind filled with "strong beliefs" cannot learn much.
Dennis, great summary, but like me, you're pretty much beating your head against the wall trying to get the facts across to people who are dead set on rejecting any facts because of their dedication to their mythology, all of which, both old and new testament was a bunch of lies cooked up to keep the one percent of all times fat and happy and able to run rough shod over the rest of the populace. We continue on the slim hope some small fraction just maybe will listen.
Well, I expect that this will devolve into cries of "CROWN STEALING" even though this notion is not by any means Dennis' own invention.
Don't know if anyone remembers, but the WCG's own "Bible Story" had no issue pointing out another possible issue with the Masoretic text, that being with Jonathan the priest in the book of Judges being named as the son of "Manasseh" instead of "Moses".
DD Post statement: I believe this reality of scripture and the actual beliefs of "the Chosen People" should indeed bother Armstrongists as well as a whole lot of other folk.
My Belief: I believe that the basics of Christian are more important than trying to determine how the God and Jesus the Christ fits in the Faith, Hope, and Love used as the foundation of Christian living. One of the problems I have found in accepting the a god that is the source of life is due to human beings who believe human beings are a part of an evolutionary process. My position on the evolutionary process is true it offers nothing in the way of hope. Without hope we are at the mercy of the world in which we live. To me building a life that has Faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior and living in harmony with the scriptures revealing the way Jesus wants us to live give a hope nothing else can offer. ASB
Alarm Armstrongists? Heck no, I'd be alarmed if Dennis stopped posting these torturing scripture posts. It's good that Dennis has found a reason for living. But I do wish that it was a hobby like gardening or stamp collecting rather than trying to destroy other Christians faith.
Evidently, NEO wasn't stealing anyone's crown just a few days ago pointing out the real background of Deuteronomy 32:8 as no one complained then of the actual meaning of the same verse used here with additional explanation of the reality of how the scriptures evolve the polytheism of the times into the monotheism most think was always there from the beginning.
As I recall, not one comment was made about the scripture as I suppose the topic of racism masked it's implications. If you go back to my original posting on this 8 years ago, it was nothing but rancor and personal attacks for even having brought it up.
The reality of the history of God as the origins, names and adaptations does evolve in the pages of the Bible. Any critical Biblical scholar or Biblical Historian will tell you this clearly lay out the evidence for it with the scriptures themselves.
Scriptures like Deut 32:8 tell a very old story and to note them is not crown stealing or any other such nonsense. If one's beliefs and faith can't stand up to scrutiny or are simply based in emotion and the need to believe contrary to the evidence against such a belief, then perhaps it needs a good looking at.
Do I understand the distress, anger and/or confusion that arises when beliefs are challenged with the facts? Of course I do. Is it related to the desire to steal crowns or "trying to destroy other Christian's faith"? Of course not. Facts are facts. History is history. And that the Hebrews borrowed, cobbled, renamed and repackaged the gods that came before them to suit their own needs and beliefs is simply how it was done no matter what we'd like to believe or how much it might upset our theological applecart.
Again, NEO correctly showed the flaw in Dean Blackwell's use of Deuteronomy 32:8. But the implications of it were not the subject of his post. I simply am showing what those implications are and how they came about as clearly shown in the OT scriptures and in the history of Israel.
Now if one believes their scriptural and historical perspectives show this not to be the case in scripture and the history of Israel as portrayed in the Bible, have at it. You will be going up against Christian scholars and historians far more informed than I am and you'd lose the argument.
Karen Armstrong's The History of God might be a good place to start for the person who sincerely wishes to explore the topic without freaking out. Besides, my function is to merely provide occasional distraction between postings on the much more important specifics of the WCG/COG crazies and perhaps helping someone avoid stepping in their theological poop. If I did not have the background I do in WCG and the same concerns as most here, I'd not be here. But I have been here for a good number of years now sharing those experiences and my own journey out. The only difference is that it seems I ended up in the splinter of skepticism and unbelief, which is the one evidently not allowed to have occurred as a result of the experience and a tendency to study origins, intent, politic and agenda of the scriptures and their authors themselves.
When you constantly comment, you become a lightening rod no matter what viewpoint you are advocating. You are flagrant, visible, and attract attention. Also, a greater, deeper fund of knowledge tends to make one liberal, and subjects one to attack from dittoheads. You are supposed to remain a WCG redneck. People resent it if you attempt to shed that aspect of your programming.
Interesting that as I read this post I recalled another scripture that might have relevance and that is Micah 4:5?
Also since the Bible does have scribal errors in it then couldn’t it be possible this verse from Deuteronomy is a possible example of such?
If you want to understand the Jews you need to understand the Babyloniad Talmud and Kabbalah. They don't go by the OT anyway.
This topic is mentioned in 2Tim 2:16-18 "But shun profane and vain babblings for they will increase into more ungodliness." Topics like this are intellectual rabbit holes of almost end ending complexity. It's a mistake to even try.
This ploy is mentioned in Saul Alinskys famous 'Rules for Radicals' book. The rule that says "whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy."
All these posters coming to Dennis's defense is touching, but it's not a virtue to put lipstick on a pig.
There's many fine books on the market that can educate readers. Why waste time on Dennis's rabbit holes? Especially since most readers on this blog are in their twilight years.
9:37~ For our recovery purposes, it's really only necessary to be familiar with the massive evidence debunking Armstrongism. That'll get you to safety, unless the need to be in a cult is written deeply into your dna. In that case, you'll probably find another one, or it'll find you. The rabbit holes as you call them are part of one person's massive barrage, or protective wall he has constructed to keep the heavenly illegal aliens out of his life. I can't imagine combing through the Bible for such minutiae. Who parses it in such obsessive detail and then rejects four or five totally logical and rational conclusions on any topic, (most of which are right in the footnotes of a good study Bible) to home in on the one conclusion that rules out God??? Surely every thinking person realizes that if there is religious bias confirmation, atheistic bias confirmation also exists! Everything in nature has some sort of polarity about it. If you gravitate soley to what is available at one of the poles, you are only getting half the picture.
Speaking of twilight years, my brother and I once had a discussion about having a sit-down with our aging parents, and sharing what we knew about Armstrongism and its doctrines. My thoughts were that at the then advanced stage of their lives, it would be too much of a shock to their systems, possibly ruining what little was left of their lives. In the '90s, they had gone with the Tkach corrections for about a year and a half, and ended up soon returning to the old Armstrong vomit. The cumulative effect of 40 years of brainwashing and programming was like that of gravity on a rocket with insufficient thrust to achieve breakaway and orbit, and fell back instead. Fortunately, at the end of the discussion, my brother and I agreed to just let the old folks alone in their ignorant but blissful state. It's better to let some people simply live out their tribulation, especially if it is self-imposed. Perhaps that advice applies to self-imposed atheist tribulations as well.
BB
Anon 9:37 Critical inquiry and historical realities about Biblical origins make you nervous don't they.
Dennis
Critical inquiries and historical realities etc, don't make me nervous one iota. Why should they? They are peripheral to Christian fundamentals such as living by the ten commandments and growing as a person.
As long as God is blessing me and answering my prayers, your posts are only academic curiosities.
On the contrary, it's you who must be nervous since you know deep down that the lake of fire is your fate.
5:10am~Exactly which acog are you a hireling for? First, you remnants of HWA's unbiblical clergy class really need to learn your bible. Which says that the Ten Commandments are the words of the old Mt. Sinai covenant. If you keep the Ten Commandments, technically speaking you're keeping the words of the old Mt. Sinai covenant. No wonder so many people are confused about the bible having had half-assed teachers trying to teach the bible.
I keep God's seventh day sabbath but not because the Ten Commandments command me to, they don't, the Ten Commandments command Israel, not you or I. I keep the sabbath because Jesus said it was made for man. That's it. I don't need any more of a reason. I'm a man, of the family of man, and I keep the day that my savior says was made for me.
Also, who the hell are you to tell Dennis what God has in store for him? That's God's prerogative, not yours. You don't know the context of the purpose of the lake of fire. Of course you think that you do, but only God knows it's true purpose, whether for punishment or to just put the rebellious out of their misery.
You guys and your arrogance is sickening!
Kevin
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:
Romans 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Philippians 2:15
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
1 John 3:1
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1 John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
510 noted: " your posts are only academic curiosities.
On the contrary, it's you who must be nervous since you know deep down that the lake of fire is your fate."
Academic "curiosities" are what lead to a better understanding of just about everything on the planet. And it's certainly fine with me that you feel blessed and listened to by God in your faith. But please don't pretend to think you know what I know "deep down." I do not fear my fate in the Lake of Fire because there is no lake of fire. My "Academic curiosities" on the origins of Hell and the like tell me so. :)
Dennis
You seem to think that you are mentally invisible. Some of my previous ministers and work bosses believed the same. I'm not sure why. Is it because they see others as children, or because some see them as junior gods, or perhaps because they have a poor sense of reality? But they are mistaken. Just as all animal species has certain traits, so do humans. These traits are mentioned repeatedly in the bible, and experienced non stop in everyday life.
It's ridiculous for any person to claim that they are sooo special, that others cannot possibly understand them or not see through them.
It's better to let some people simply live out their tribulation, especially if it is self-imposed. Perhaps that advice applies to self-imposed atheist tribulations as well.
Has it ever dawned people here that a large number of the members and their families in WWCOG in those years before HWA died and all of the troubles began were contented and happy going through sabbath and feast day experiences. I cannot give any figures about the churches world wide but I can say that the majority of the members in the congregation I attended and worked with were as contented and happy people can be.The kids were well cared for and like kids in any gathering. I know that my sons, daughters, and grandkids do not regret being in involved with the church as it was then. To say it was a life of tribulations shows a lack of respect for those who think differently. ASB
DD I agree 510 should not have made such a comment even if they thought it was true. I also recognize that the bible in not saying that people are going to be cast into the lake of fire. The lake of fire in revelations talks about the devil and the false prophet are to be tormented for eternity. I will not try to explain what that means but it isn't talking about hell which is a salvage dump. I was a little surprised a sore spot had been touched. We need to remember we are human and Christ doesn't give us the right to condemn others. ASB
“To say it was a life of tribulations shows a lack of respect for those who think differently”
Not true. It demonstrates my contempt for people who see that horrible era retrospectively through their rose colored glasses. In fact, I believe that you and nck probably attended the same imaginary local congregation.
I and my siblings were not the only ones who grew up receiving between 3-4 pants down beatings of 40 lashes each every single day with belts, metal spatulas, paddles, and switches, and were required to address the wretches who did that to us as “Sir”, and “Ma’am”, and to thank them for the “spankings”. We were denied proper medical care, and were required to be outspoken and make pariahs of ourselves at school.
This stuff is all well-documented, Albert, and you don’t get to get away with trying to whitewash it. There are pages and pages of first person testimony about growing up in the so-called golden era of Armstrongism in the 1950s and ‘60s on virtually all of the so called WCG-dissident sites on the internet.
I have enough integrity that if my family were the only WCG family in which this occurred, I would blame my parents for it and not the church. Having local friends in our congregation, and international friends at SEP, three years of attendance, I can assure you that our situation was very very common, and replicated throughout the entire membership of the church. People even died, and those are the ones for whom I have respect. Don’t you even dare to try to diminish or justify this stuff or to pretend it never happened!
BB
ASB
Research abusive cults on the web. Every time that there was a body of complaints, researchers found the accusations to be true. As a minister, you and your family were treated with kids gloves, so your experiences are not representative of other church members. Members who complained to ministers were verbally bashed, so shallow appearances meant nothing in HWA churches, No sooner had I stepped through the front door of a church service, was I treated like a five year old by the minister and his minions. I was once approached by a minister for giving an abusive church member a disapproving look. That was a typical church experience. The church was a moral Nazi concentration camp, a moral black hole of Calcutta. Church crazies had a field day. No wonder these people visit HWAs grave and revere him. Bastards love other bastards.
BB
It is true that I feel ASB and I attended the same church. It is also true that in the past I felt you were "crazy" or "mad" at the least.
Now I believe your early life was in fact true and factual within a pre Facebook filter bubble. You have extrapolated the very minority into a majority regarding the extremes of experiences that unfortunately are substantiated by others.
Even if in my decades of worldwide experience I never encountered. And yes some nasty dudes did get the paddle on their bottoms at SEP. Something I did not approve of as a camper SINCE at 13 I had already been aware of the UN treaties NOT signed by the USA regarding corporal punishment.
At 13 I was also aware "after weeks of intense studies in my science magazine in the local library" that HWA,s views on race were NOT up to date and even quite 19th century and some even "very American" . But at the time I overlooked it as a non issue for salvation, since I knew many born in the 19th century or around the turn of it that were worse but kind people still.
Nck
BB said, "Not true. It demonstrates my contempt for people who see that horrible era retrospectively through their rose colored glasses. In fact, I believe that you and nck probably attended the same imaginary local congregation."
Yet on another thread he said, "However, I realize today that unfortunately, victims often turn and become predators themselves, inflicting their own bad experiences upon others."
Then he goes on to arrogantly opine, "One would think that having experienced the indignities of being part of a hated religious minority ourselves, all of us would have great compassion for others who had suffered abuse from the mainstream."
How correct was I to point out that he's not too stupid to see the contradiction here, he's too arrogant?
BB, isn't it time to grow up?
ASB said " but I can say that the majority of the members in the congregation I attended and worked with were as contented and happy people can be. The kids were well cared for and like kids in any gathering"
That was my own experience for the most part ASB. I am sure there were dramatic exceptions and I get what BB is saying too. This would also be true of many churches, not just WCG. Just as some things, such as "Child Rearing" were taught or emphasized by some more than others, much of it was ignored on the real life level and people just raised their kids as best they could and would anywhere else. This is not to tolerate or deny the loonies and zealots in the church. They are in every church.
205 Noted:
"Dennis
You seem to think that you are mentally invisible. (I have no idea what that means)
" Is it because they see others as children, or because some see them as junior gods, or perhaps because they have a poor sense of reality? " (No, not that. I have a very well developed sense of reality. Junior gods? Really? The concept, thought or behavior as such would never cross my mind. You simply don't know me as I don't know you. Actually you know me better than I know you.)
'It's ridiculous for any person to claim that they are sooo special, that others cannot possibly understand them or not see through them. "
(I agree. Why would I think I was "sooooo special"? I have lots of people who totally understand me and my perspectives on Biblical origins etc and even now why the feel like shit, are stressed to the max, need help with the headaches and migraines or just wish to talk about stuff in their lives because they know stuff has been a part of mine too.
I'm glad you can see through me. You and the one who knows my "down deep you know" self should get together and start a fortune telling practice." :)
Dennis
There are over 7 billion people on this planet, so your claim of others not being able to discern your motives rings hollow.. And no fortune teller is required. All that's required is to observe your fruits.
PS, since you missed it, ministers are often viewed as junior gods in Herbs church. You must be aware of this since you have many times used the argument from authority logic fallacy. Once a minister, always a minister.
Anon 11;00pm said "As a minister, you and your family were treated with kids gloves, so your experiences are not representative of other church members"
I would like to clear up some things regarding my comment that generated this reply. First I was not a minister that ruled the churches I attended. I was a local elder in the last 25 years of my 42 years but my comments applied to those early years of attendance. If I had been treated the way you described there would have been an early exit. I rule my life responsibilities, but assume other people will live theirs. ASB
“BB, isn’t it time to grow up?”
Yes! I believe you should! And you can start by not deliberately lifting comments from the contexts in which they were originally made in your effort to manufacture contradictions. I’d recommend that you have yourself tested for Asperger Syndrome or autism, because you’ve clearly exhibited one of the symptoms.
BB
Well, nck, I only have one thing to say about that. The people who didn’t follow the program and beat their kids, the people who now see that entire era through their rose colored glasses as a time of sweetness and light, are the very ones we were programmed to regard as being Laodicean back in that day. Non-zealous, lame, practically inert by church standards of that day. They never quite drank the Kool Aid or went with the program, and now they want to unwrite the actual and prevailing histories of those who did!
BB
10:45
BB
I'm sorry. I didn't know it was a requirement or sign of Philadelphianism to beat children back in the days.
Nck
BB, Gary Petty of UCG fame and his two sisters grew up in the exact same era of the church as you. In fact their dad was an elder in the WCG and all three are still in the church. Your claims that if you didn't beat your kids you were considered Laodicean is simply bullshit produced from a warped mind. The three I mention above don't live a life of hatred for the cog as you do, proving that the problem was a combination of the cog culture where you lived and your parents inability to lovingly parent. I find it sad the torment that you went through and the tortured mind that it produced, but labeling well adjusted parents of the same era who didn't beat their kids as Loadicean, is a product of your inner thoughts, not reality. Byker maybe you should consider doing exactly what you told anonymous to do in your 10:27am post, seek out medical help for your warped tormented mind. Always bragging about your job and other accomplishments is a sign of an inferiority complex and another sign is lashing out on others as you do. An inferiority complex that was most likely caused by the toxic combination of the WCG culture in your local church and your parents apparent immaturity in regards to the ability of raising kids. Seek out help, it's for your own good.
6.35 AM
If WCG toxic culture was only localized, this blog wouldn't exist. Elders and their children were treated with kids gloves, so your example proves nothing.
HWAs "government is everything" meant exactly that. It meant that man was made for government rather than government being made for man. Ministers "stole" members lives. That was universal. So yeah, thousands of former members need help for the harm inflicted on them by their "ministers."
Common comments such as 'ministers should be strung up on the nearest lamp post,' are made for a reason.
Already did get the therapy back in the ‘80s, 6:35. That’s largely how I was able to overcome my background, and to begin to be successful. I began to share all of that starting in the early 2,000s on the internet, hoping to inspire others who were still hurting, much the same as some who have escaped and overcome horrible ghetto and barrio situations and histories of gang violence go back into the ghetto or barrio to rescue, inspire, and help others.
If you go through long term COG recovery sites such as the Painful Truth, and Exit and Support Network, you will find the testimonies of numerous people from my era of Armstrongism who experienced exactly the same depravities as did I and my siblings. My parents were quite inspired, in fact, when a WCG pastor was visiting our home, I’m thinking in about 1960 or ‘61, and repeatedly spanked his infant daughter in our presence for persisting in some minor typically child-like behavior. The little girl had to have been two years old at that time. This was outrageously over the top by “the world’s” standards, but totally in keeping with one of the parental role plays outlined in the church’s child-rearing booklets.
Over the past twenty years, there have been many people on these blogs and the old forums who have shared their stories of Radio and Worldwide Church of God extremely abusive childhoods with us, and how it has stulted their adulthoods. Some of them got into various addictions in their late teens and early adulthoods, women told stories of being drawn to and serially marrying horrible abusive men, ending up beaten and in shelters, and there are the ones who can’t share their stories because their escape was to join the military, and they got killed in Vietnam. Others committed suicide. I held my silence for a number of years about the abuses I had suffered at the hands of WCG, because it was really embarrassing. That was not the image I wanted to set in the minds of the readers. When I realized that there were people who were still suffering, I began to share in order to provide support and inspiration to those who were still in pain. From the very beginning there were current church members who denied that our experiences had ever happened, and called us liars or accused us of extrapolating. Your comment is not by any means new or unique in any way.
I did not know the Gary Petty you mentioned in your post. The only Petty I knew in the WCG was Jim Petty, who taught us PE at Ambassador College. However, over the years, there have been some AC faculty members and ministers who later admitted that they did not raise their children according to the childrearing booklet or the church’s verbal teachings. Much as Dennis Diehl had the common sense to act as a buffer between the church and his congregation, some parents actually did act as a buffer between the church and their children. And, yes! This was noticed, and those people were branded in church gossip as being Laodicean. From many of the comments here, I sometimes feel that Laodiceanism succeeded in terms of church reform where Tkachism failed.
BB
Re ASD/OCD I've always wondered if HWA was on the spectrum or those attracted to his cult (eg Bobby Fischer--see https://bobby-fischer-1962.blogspot.com/p/bobby-fischer-chess-genius.html) considering he and his followers have a hyper focus on rituals and traditions (eg structure of services, do's and don'ts of Sabbaths, triple tithing, dress code, baptismal formula, OT law, etc.). I think even his affiliation with Methodism added to his controlling personality and the perfectionism he incorporated into his cult.
Let's just suppose BB's testimony was relevant to half of radio church of god population.
7500? in 1962. This would at most include 1000 children at "to be beaten age".
By the time of Vietnam most of those would have children of their own and either leave the church because of their experiences or not repeat the mistakes of their parents.
The reason I was not acquainted with the practices is that by the time I joined the church had grown to 40.000 - up to 90.000 under hwa and then explode to 150000 members.
Let's again suppose that I could find the or 1000 testimonies like BB's on the internet (WHICH ARE NOT THERE. Then they are "just" that 1000 testimonies out of 400.000 that had gone through the ranks of wcg over the years.
a) BB does extrapolate the 75 testimonies or so to be meaning 60.000 abused children. Which is ridiculous.
b) Also BB does not take into account that there were children that under the " rearing rules" of his supposed philadelphian attitude did not "need" correction since they might have been predisposed to mellow behavior.
c) futhermore I still feel that I've I or my parents had been in BB's congregation we would have them reported to the police.
I do not feel BB is a liar regarding his unfortunate upbringing. He does impose however an extreme minority view on the large majority.
I do take into account social factors like Anglo Saxon child rearing practices being VERY different from lets say 25.000 members in nations with a different culture.
I do not know about the canadian general statistics in regards to child abuse in correlation to the church's 7000 member or Australia with 4000 members at its peak or South Africa with 2500 members at peak. I only know about signees to UN treaties which is my expertise.
nck
"Elders and their children were treated with kids gloves, so your example proves nothing."
Bullshit!!!! If as BB claimed that if you didn't beat your kids you were considered Laodicean then that would apply to ministers kids as well as members kids, or else his comment, as yours is total bs. Which proves my point!
BB, Do you or anyone else on here have a link to the 1950's-60's booklets on "child breaking"? I'd like to get a copy for posterity of the sins of the past.
Thanks,
Kevin
Yeah, 3:01. We all certainly realize by now that nck deals in a lot of bullshit in addition to his sometimes brilliant comments.
My first ex-wife graduated from Imperial Schools, and shared much about the HQ ministers’ kids, her classmates back in the ‘60s. Several of them faced double swats for a single offense. They would be spanked at home for being spanked at school, in one case, the number of swats being doubled at home. A minister’s child needing swats was considered to be very embarrassing, because it reflected upon the minister and his wife themselves, and on the church.
Nck, ASB, and several others around here follow the ACOG time honored practice of denying all the bad of the past. I’d bet they’ll even deny all of the deaths due to the pre-1980’s medical doctrines. The bottom line is that there is abundant testimony in various internet archives to refute their denials. It’s a matter of record.
BB
I don’t, Kevin. I threw all of that stuff away back in the ‘70s, and have never been tempted to return to all that old vomit. Not even to enter discussions. It’s just all so sickening.
BB
BB
I don't see postings of mine that deny anything. I was even extremely exact in estimation even doubling a realistic count.
Also I never posted an unsigned postimg. So the specific anonymous posting that you refer at as "bullshit" is not mine. (the others might)
If I had any clue as to what you refer as my more brilliant postings I might just post more of those. But I will not actively sollicit positive feedback as it might undermine my complete objectivity regarding matters under discussion.
Nck
Just hilarious! So you deny having denied anything? You’re a regular bundle of laughs, you are!
BB
Thank you for your feedback and astute observation!
Nck
Post a Comment