Australia Hit With Fire, Hail, Dead Animals, Darkness in one Week: On Anniversary of Ten Plagues
January 22, 2020
In the midst of raging wildfires, hailstones the size of baseballs pounded Australia in a mix of elemental opposites echoing the Egyptian plague. As if that reminder of the Exodus were not enough, a massive dust storm turned night into day. These and other phenomena created a pre-Messiah show of wonders in the hard-hit continent down under conspicuously timed to coincide with the week when Jews around the world read the section of the Torah relating the story of the plaques in Egypt. …
While the fires continued to burn in the southeast, the capital city Canberra, Melbourne, and other areas were hit by hailstorms raining down golf-ball-sized chunks of ice.
"Someone actually telephoned me from the State of Washington yesterday and asked what she could take to fight this coronavirus. I told her that since I had not seen anyone with it, I was unsure, but did (upon her insistence) suggest two herbal formulas which have helped people with other viruses."
Note: Typical fear, it seems that God might forget ME in all this and some reassurances need that "A thousand may fall at your right side. Ten thousand at your left hand, but it will not come near YOU" .(Ps 91:7) "Hide me in the grave until thy wrath be past" doesn't seem an option anyone would want to face. (Job 14:13)
"In what seems to be an unprecedented move related to the Chinese New Year, government officials have cancelled celebrations in several cities:"
Why does this always have to be so difficult?
Exodus 33:11 11The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.
It's the best and only way , if you're there, to show that stated willingness that none perish but that all come the knowledge of the truth, isn't it? I do suspect it is a conditional kind of unconditional love however.
Asking for a friend...
57 comments:
If it bleeds, it leads
Bobby is just following the typical news model.
"You say "god can do anything." Have him say "hi""
That is an absurd statement. Just because God can do anything does not mean He will do anything - especially if it involves casting pearls before swine.
NEO said...
"...Just because God can do anything does not mean He will do anything - especially if it involves casting pearls before swine."
Just because god claims to be a friend to those who seek him, does not mean he will act like a friend to those who seek him.
I guess, according to NEO, I was always just a swine.
When I was in high school, I became aware that through rhetoric and logical constructs, man can "set up" God. A friend asked me "If God is all powerful, can He create a rock so heavy that even He can't move it?" My friend was well schooled in Talmudic logic, and referred to that as being "the rhetorical question".
Need I say more?
BB
Hmm, I wonder if the person in Washington phoned Dr (ThD) Bob the prophet, or Dr (PhD) Bob the purveyor of potions? If it was the former, would he have given a herbal remedy or sent an anointed cloth (which can be folded over for a 'double portion')?
In an FOT sermon, the minister came on stage and asked, "Does God heal?". He then said "Yes" and walked off the stage. He then returned for to give a health and healing sermon. At the time it surprised me that members were talking about the various vitamins and supplements they used - somehow I felt that was contradictory to healing and the WCG "healthy diet".
Anonymous (10:25)
You have taken what I wrote and extended it to categories that are not under consideration. That works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. Think of it this way: What I said encompasses the class of impudent statements - like the one DD posted.
There is not ONE single scientific proof that love exists. None. Therefore it doesn't.
Of course love exists. Look at how many senators are showing love for the President by suppressing the evidence against him. Like WCG members suppress the incest for HWA!
BB
10:01
Research is showing that 2.5/3 year olds are sharing toys with crying babies when left alone in a laboratory situation.
Before that they are still in the process of discovering that they are a person themselves. Smiling and crying to their own image in the mirror whatever the mirror image portrays.
Nck
Bob noted: ""Someone actually telephoned me from the State of Washington yesterday and asked what she could take to fight this coronavirus. I told her that since I had not seen anyone with it, I was unsure, but did (upon her insistence) suggest two herbal formulas which have helped people with other viruses."
Bob sounds surprised that someone would actually telephone him about the coronavirus. The "upon her insistence" suggests that it wasn't his idea nor did he have a lot of confidence in it but hey... and suggests, without much confidence it also sounds, two herbal formulas are said or thought to have helped others with viruses.
With all due respect to the sincerity of those seeking alternative ways to treat disease than cutting it out, burning or poisoning everything to get at the one thing with the hope of not killing the person first, the concept of like curing like and dilution of solutions down to water, that was conceived of in the 18th century by one man seems a similar draw to being drawn to "the truth" preached by the one man HWA.
I have personally never found anything of homeopathic treatments to be effective or real. It seems that if the concept is true then our tap water would contain enough of every conceivable drug, chemical and pesticide to kill us all even after filtration. But then I have never found the unscientific and dangerous practice of ear candling or ionic foot soaking to be of value save for someone who sold it to you.
con't...
con't
"Homeopathy or homœopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine. It was created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann. Its practitioners, called homeopaths, believe that a substance that causes symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people; this doctrine is called similia similibus curentur, or "like cures like". Homeopathic preparations are termed remedies and are made using a process called homeopathic dilution. This process involves repeatedly diluting a chosen substance, typically until nothing—that is, not even a single molecule—of the original substance is likely to remain in the product. Between the dilution iterations homeopaths practice hitting and/or violently shaking the diluent, and claim that it makes the diluent remember the original substance after its removal. The diluent is typically either distilled water, ethanol or sugar. Practitioners claim that such preparations, upon oral intake, can treat or cure disease."
In other words, the memory of the water having experienced the substance is enough now.
Perhaps like homeopathy, pseudo-religion, conceived of by the one man who knows is just as much the same. It is interesting, a bit on the rebellious side, makes one feel they have special knowledge, answers questions no one else knows the answers to or even asks about, only for chosen and something one can be asked "so how did you come into the Truth" about.
Vitamins, herbs, diluted water with past memories and anointed cloths aren't going to cure the plague. Also, any natural phenomenon such as too much water, wind, fire are simply that, natural as always and not function of the storm god Baal or his successor YHVH.
God is not trying to get our attention with such things. Weather is just weather and we should know better by now after 3000 years of "the gods did it". The point is that a simple "hi, it's me, the real God. I'm having open seminars on everything with a question and answer time for as long as it takes. We have eternity after all. Don't be afraid. My perfect love has casts out your fears so it's all good, would go a lot further than loosing Mr. Mayhem on already oppressed humans just trying to live a decent life.
The concept of"Love Jesus or I'll kill you" doesn't seem the best way to make a point or win the hearts and minds of those you supposedly love. Kinda like forcing people to the feast by holding back the rains for their crops. It doesn't make you the best audience during sermons. (Zac 14:18)
As an Aussie from Melbourne it has been a crazy summer so far! We’ve had cold weather making it feel like winter rather than summer, uncontrollable bushfires in our state, smoke haze causing poor air quality and affecting people’s health, giant hailstones damaging property, and dirty rain leaving a copper color all over the place that’s been difficult to wash off. Seriously we’re all thinking wth’s next?!
I've asked myself a thousand times over my lifetime just why was I drawn to WCG. Lots of reasons of course. We all have certain personality traits or ways of being. We all filter our world through a myriad of filters available to us bequeathed to us by our experiences, or upbringing and our DNA. We all believe what we believe or not believe based on either evidence or in the case of religion, faith. Personally I don't think one can be honest and mix the two and untangling them can take a lifetime as well.
Bob believes that one can dilute a substance down to the point where there is not one molecule of that substance left in the mix and yet it can heal. I don't. As noted, if so, our tap water would do is all in. Bob also believes, and sincerely so I assume because it's in the Bible, that bad weather and nasty natural phenomenon are tools of God to lead people to the truth or else. I don't. There is only faith in that and no evidence for it.
There are other explanations for it all that are just fine, make perfect sense and require no third parties to bring it about.
Belief in the efficacy any pseudoscience including homeopathy, vitamins and herbal treatments has a place I suppose. Homeopathy is an expensive way of applying the placebo effect to human misery. The placebo effect is real. Belief does alter the mind and body at times. Not always of course.
Over the last 22 years I have come across just as many strange ideas in the world of therapeutic massage as I did in WCG. I taught a class in my massage course on the many pseudoscientific traps a therapist can fall into with regards to massage. There is
woo woo in all beliefs. Separating the woo woo from the facts can be a challenge. But the fact is that woo woo ultimately doesn't work often speaks well enough for itself. It can be comforting however as can be religious belief. We are wired for it I believe.
Personally I never saw anyone cured of cancer by such means. I rarely see it by any means depending on the type.
con't
con't
Perhaps so is choosing a religious belief that fits the personality, upbringing and DNA. Our need for religious comfort is directly tied to our fear of death and "what's going to happen to me?" That's how we all ended up here on Banned and why millions share on other sites about their own experiences with it all as they encountered their religious needs and questions.
I always wondered why we had to beg God to be healed. I admit to feeling skeptical when I sent out an "anointed cloth" and often felt that if you ask for one at some peak moment of the flu, for example, and you get better it would appear that it worked. But you simply were at your peak moment of the flu and would have gotten better anyway. I have had people die under my hands during prayer for their healing which never came. Often they tried every woo woo on earth to facilitate their healing. Sometimes they would have been better off doing what their medical doctor said to do. Often times it didn't matter either.
Just musing here before work on a variety of concepts regarding woo woo in both religion and self care. It seems to annoy the hell out of me that Bob preaches a Bronze Age God and quotes 3000 year old scriptures about the causes of weather, when he is dead wrong and should know better but won't or can't.
No God is so inept that it has to use ambiguous means to get our attention. Saying "Hi" would be a start. And no BB, who noted: "When I was in high school, I became aware that through rhetoric and logical constructs, man can "set up" God. A friend asked me "If God is all powerful, can He create a rock so heavy that even He can't move it?" My friend was well schooled in Talmudic logic, and referred to that as being "the rhetorical question".
Need I say more?" It is not a rhetorical question. It's a simple one and could have an answer. The rock so heavy or angels on the end of pin stuff is not the same as wondering why a real God simple does not speak up in plain human language and not hide behind a myriad of questionable occurrences that reveal nothing of it/him/her.
Off to work to heal the sick, lift the heart and raise the dead with massage.. :)
Finally: A well spoken article on the pseudoscience of Homeopathy for those so inclined. It also nicely explains why many get so defensive in defending such things and carries over into how we all get defensive in many things we firmly believe whether it is true or not. It nicely explains also how one can fudge the evidence to fit the need to believe and the differences between doing so and the scientific method of discovery.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2
"same as wondering why a real God simple does not speak up in plain human language and not hide behind a myriad of questionable occurrences that reveal nothing of it/him/her."
So Dennis, why does the simple explanation that God is building character in us (something that he can't create without giving his creation free will) and when man initially rejected him (which he knew would occur) he gave them/us a period of time on our own so we can learn that life without him is harsh. During this time he's only intervening occasionally in order to create "firstfruits" who will lead and guide the billions when God finally resurrects all, allowing them to know first hand what life without him is like. Then giving them a period of time to see what life following his way is like. Why is that concept no longer a plausible explanation for you?
Bart Ehrman isn't even able to grasp such an explanation, wondering why God would allow all the suffering. Not grasping that to God our 70, 80 year life is nothing compared to what he has planned for us, so he knows that by allowing us to experience suffering because we want our own way, we'll learn the benefits of living his way.
I understand completely your doubt about whether God exists, but why do you resort to questions that you know, or at least knew at one time the answer to? God is silent because that's what we chose. God allows suffering because we chose that. We want to do things our way, we don't want to be told by anyone what's best for us. That's our nature and God is using that free will that he has given us to teach us an eternal lesson.
That's a perfect explanation of why God is silent, why God doesn't heal, people don't want to accept that or him.
"The concept of"Love Jesus or I'll kill you"
Oh brother! That's the protestant belief and you know that. The WCG and HWA had many problems, but at least they/we understood what God is doing down here below. Thanks to Charles Taze Russell who HWA stole the "second chance" Great White Throne Judgement teaching from.
DD stated: " It is not a rhetorical question. It's a simple one and could have an answer."
The simple answer is that if God were to show up and say "Hi" you could not be an atheist. For some reason, it is a benefit to you over the long run to have the freedom to be an atheist. How does it benefit you? That's your concern. Maybe, in part, it is to answer the question: "If I had a little bit of freedom, what would I do with it?"
I am not a Thiel defender, however, the couched way in which he mentioned the natural remedies for the coronavirus is the mode of expression inflicted upon vitamin advocates by the medical establishment. People who sell vitamins must often carefully state that they are not doctors, are not prescribing vitamins as a medication, and that the vitamins have not been tested by the FDA to prove any claims made about them. Right now, I'm looking at my Schiff MegaRed Omega 3X bottle, whose label carefully makes the asterisked statement "Essential Omega 3 support for your whole body." If you follow the asterisk to the rear of the label, you read "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."
Back in the '80s, I read an article in Easyriders (which had at that time become my new "Plain Truth") about the benefits of partying hearty and counteracting or controlling the effects of the various libations with the aid of certain vitamins. I learned about the benefits of L-glutamine, Vitamin C, and Vitamin E. I credit these and other vitamins with being the reason why nobody, personally or professionally, has any idea how old I really am. Of course, I've also modified my conversation, not usually mentioning seeing Elvis on the Sullivan show, or even having seen a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert when Ronnie Van Zant was still alive, or working on the old Ford flathead engines, owning one of the classic '60s supercars when they were still new, or watching NHRA drag races before the top fuel racers had cracked the 200 mile per hour barrier. I don't mention the ages of my children, or that some of my younger siblings have retired. If anyone point blank asks my age, I joke "Under which name, or what paperwork" If they press, I respond with "I've already said too much."
Can I prove that vitamins and a lifetime of good physical fitness activity are responsible? Do I preach or advocate vitamins and health foods? No. I just quietly enjoy the benefits.
BB
"That's a perfect explanation of why God is silent, why God doesn't heal, people don't want to accept that or him.
January 26, 2020 at 5:53 AM"
That's your perfect explanation for you.
Near_Earth_Object said...
The simple answer is that if God were to show up and say "Hi" you could not be an atheist. For some reason, it is a benefit to you over the long run to have the freedom to be an atheist. How does it benefit you? That's your concern. Maybe, in part, it is to answer the question: "If I had a little bit of freedom, what would I do with it?"
Well that kinda goes without saying doesn't it? It would not be to my benefit or reasonable to be staring at the real God who actually said hi and I believed it.
The "freedom to be an atheist" is no different that me calling your beliefs "the freedom to being a believer." How does that benefit you? That's your concern too I would imagine about your own views and beliefs. I thought you had freedom in Christ? You make it sound like atheism is some kind of fake freedom and your faith is a kind of prison you are stuck with but like somehow.
What I do with my freedom from faith only is explore. I learn putting aside what I once thought was so with new information of what is more so with always more to believe. I don't recall either as a Presbyterian or in WCG the freedom to explore anything. It was all there to simply be believed or get marked, disfellowshipped, noted or fired for deviating from the established truth, which was not often true at all.
I don't have a "little bit of freedom" I have total freedom to sit down before those facts, as I have noted in the past, as both a little child willing to learn and an adult able to critically think it through without apologetics attached to keep my faith restrictions intact too. Anything that restricts knowledge to what is acceptable to the faith is not knowledge. It is propaganda. Facts may not lead where I thought they would but the ability to accept that as well is a gift not a liability. I don't mind being dis-illusioned. I don't want to live with delusions. Total freedom to search out a matter is really a great freedom and the more the better. I am not restricted by the threat of a Lake of Fire, which is a construct to keep the faithful in line, or exclusion from the Wonderful World Tomorrow as I am concerned only with the Wonderful World Today.
Actually, if a God took clearly understood approach and time to kindly say "Hi", I'd probably like how it thought and it would like me too. :)
A personal comment: Having read through all the comment by DD I feel that the whole message of the live an allotted time, and we experience a physical death. We had no control over our birth and our physical death is just a matter of time. We need to think about how we use the time allotted in between those two Christian Faith is being reduced or destroyed by non believers. The reality of life is simple. We are born, experiences. If we understand what I define as the Christian Faith we will recognize that a true Christian Faith works on building a life that reflects a life of an Eternal Being with the hope of an eternal existence. To me this hope is more important than trying to prove all the scientist details. Reflecting the love revealed in the Christian Faith should be our primary goal in life.
God is building character in us
Read any of the ACOG booklets about child-rearing. Then, ask yourself, "How would your children turn out if you reared them in the same way God is rearing us"?
7.55 AM
Nice write up Dennis. However my experience with you on this blog is that you use facts and reason the same way as the Catholic church does. That is, you use them as a hand maid to your beliefs, rather than facts and reason ruling supreme in your life.
And I don't believe that God never communicated to you in your role as minister. He did say Hi, and much more to you.
Your 'Terminator' resolve on this blog cannot be explained away unless your private beliefs differ from your stated beliefs. And there will be no 'your faith in God is termiñated.' Dream on!
755 a the price one pays for sharing genuine thoughts, experiences, new insights and lessons learned too openly seems to be free anal-ysis of both "real motives" and that which, "cannot be explained away unless..." this or that is the reason. And you know this how?
8.40 AM
The gaol of the ACOG child rearing booklets is to instruct parents how to manufacture Borg drones for their churches.
Scott Adams has brought out that a number of people believe they are mind readers based on them saying what they believe others are really thinking.
It seems like several people on this forum believe they are mind readers too.
This is not supported by science or the Bible with the exception of God.
So, Dennis, when people tell you what you are really thinking, maybe it is God saying hi to you- either that or a person without logic skills.
f we understand what I define as the Christian Faith we will recognize that a true Christian Faith works on building a life that reflects a life of an Eternal Being with the hope of an eternal existence. To me this hope is more important than trying to prove all the scientist details.
Yes, that hope is perhaps "more important." But what happens if you discover a "scientist detail" that undermines the foundation of your faith? If you are trying to live in a way that reflects a life of an Eternal Being, certainly such a Being would not require willful stupidity of you, would He/She/It? Reconcile science or put it on a secondary level, perhaps, but if your faith requires you to "act stupid" when your God-given reason knows better, then there is a problem with your faith.
Anon8:47AM:
"...And I don't believe that God never communicated to you in your role as minister. He did say Hi, and much more to you. Your 'Terminator' resolve on this blog cannot be explained away unless your private beliefs differ from your stated beliefs. And there will be no 'your faith in God is termiñated.' Dream on!"
I was born in the church. I stayed in the church for 40 years. I was never a minister, but my experience is similar to what Dennis describes.
Matthew:
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
I asked, but I never received. I was seeking, but I did not find. Knocking, but he did not answer. If only god had been evil, and given me a stone or a serpent! Then I at least would have known that I had a father in heaven!
I guess you won't believe me, just like you refuse to believe Dennis. But that's okay. I don't believe you. How do you know how differentiate random chance from the subtle hint from an invisible supernatural agency? How do you know the identity of this supernatural agency? Why does he have to be subtle? Why can't he just say "hi" if he wanted to answer? No, I don't believe you have respectable answers to these questions.
When I decided the ball was in god's court and I was through trying to play ball by myself, other people in the church wanted to know why. I told them my personal experience, sort of the way I'm telling you my personal experience now. In so many words, they told me my personal experience didn't matter, and countered with their personal experience, you know, stuff like how god helped them find their car keys. Yep, got it: your personal experience matters, but mine, not so much? Dream on!
If you want to hit back, you better come up with better answers than those who have gone before you. If all you can come up with is the same old drivel, the same old accusations, well, yeah right! Dream on.
9.27 AM
And you know this how?
Dennis, I know this based on my life experiences, and the knowledge and understanding that I have acquired in my lifetime.
The price one pays for trying to convince others of your viewpoint is that others have the right to reply. It must feel strange as a former minister to have others 'talk back,' but that's the real world, rather than the ivory tower existence that you are accustomed to.
What is always bubbling just beneath the surface of the comments here seems to be the psychological needs of the persons who were attracted by, involved in, or influenced by Armstrongism. Actually, for those about to pounce, I don't consider myself to be an exception to that, either, even though I was reluctantly dragged into that hot mess by my parents, as opposed to having found it on my own as an adult, as some have done.
The idea that there can be some secret knowledge that elevates one above the rest of humanity is a very powerful magnet. That we could teach and enforce that in such a way as to introduce a new utopia, accompanied by the panacea for all of humanity's problems, can also be extremely attractive. Add to that that one's miserable, exploited life is actually the qualifying process, and everybody else who is having a much better life is not qualifying, and you have the hook, the line, and the sinker. Some found this program to salve their deep inner needs, to scratch a particular itch from time to time, if you will. Until it was unmasked, and didn't.
"When the truth is found to be lies", the words with which the timeless Jefferson Airplane anthem "Somebody to Love" opens, the psychological needs do not go away. The craving to fill them persists. Different people attempt to fill that craving in a variety of ways. Some become external processors and share, looking for a support group and possibly new friends. Others try out new gnosticism and try to give it wings, like holocaust denial, anti-circumcision propaganda, alternative versions of prophecy and Bible interpretation, etc. Some appear to be starting their own church group and come here seeking to be the new guru. When they get censored, or meet widespread rejection, they either go anonymous, or become indignant and leave. There are the chain yankers and shock jocks whose natures went off in perverse directions following their disappointment, and seem to have a need to mess with others. Some are actually seeking new truths. Others never reached the vanguard of Armstrongism, were unknowns and also rans, and want to prove that in reality, they were somebody. Still others, I suppose come here to conduct a rescue mission, because they are always correcting us by applying the old Armstrong teachings.
There isn't a single person here who cannot be subjected to dimestore psychoanalysis, or analysis of motive. That is also something which we learned to do from Herbert W. Armstrong. The problem is, some people actually do have agendas and motives. It's been my experience that the ones with the sinister agendas and motives generally run afoul of the system, and/or elliminate themselves. Others are just plain annoying and never seem to go away.
BB
There's a little-known passage in Deuteronomy...
Deuteronomy 18:
21 And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?
22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is a thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus predicted the apocalypse would occur within the lifetime of those around him. It is recorded in the canonical gospels six times. They attest that Jesus prophesied the same thing in four different settings, expressing it a little differently each time. Is there any room left to argue he meant something else? And yet this prediction still failed to come to pass.
People in the church have always loved to explain away Herbert Armstrong's failed predictions for the apocalypse by saying he was still right, "just a little off on the timing." But Deuteronomy 18 makes no allowances for being "a little off on the timing." Either the Lord spoke it, or else he did not.
The only one of these that I recall anyone ever paying attention to was Matthew 24:34/Luke 21:32:
Luke 21:32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
This is the only one we ever debated because we could always quibble over the ambiguity of which generation "this generation" was intended to refer to. Why did I never hear anyone bring up the other passages in which there is no such ambiguity? I think I know why. The others were all more difficult to quibble over...
Matthew 10:23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
There's not that many cities in Israel. It's only about the size of New Jersey...
Matthew 16:28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Unless there's some people who were standing there then who are now 2,000 years old and still wandering around?
Mark:14:
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
See also Matthew 26:63-64. Either Caiaphas saw the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, or he didn't. Which do you think happened?
How do you know whether a man speaks for the Lord or not? If you have any doubts, Deuteronomy 18 answers that question.
According to the gospels, Jesus unambiguously predicted the apocalypse would occur within the lifetime of those around him. And now, here we are, almost 2,000 years later, far beyond the time frame for Jesus' predictions. Did he speak in the name of a god powerful enough to make good on his prediction? Deuteronomy 18 allows us to decide. Jesus spoke presumptuously and we are instructed not to fear him.
Maybe Deuteronomy explains why I couldn't find Jesus? According the NT, he was just a first century hoaxer.
BB ... If anyone point blank asks my age, I joke "Under which name, or what paperwork" If they press, I respond with "I've already said too much."
My mother's response to that question was always, "I'm as old as my tongue and a little bit older than my teeth".
10.42 AM
According to surveys done by some HWA ministers, about half of the members in Herbs day did no, or only a few minutes of prayer and bible study per day. Try finishing high school or a college degree with a few minutes of study a day. So of course many will claim that God did not answer their prayers. Not forgetting, most times when I went to restaurants with members, one or more members playing king of the hill was the norm. They ruined it for every one. So again, that God doesn't answer many members prayers is to be expected. Ministers complained from the pulpit about members wanting to enter the kingdom on their own rather than Gods terms. So it's simple cause and effect that many members prayers are not answered.
This is an example of Gods great trait of never lowering His standards.
Sometimes 'the same old drivel' is the truth.
Try finishing high school or a college degree with a few minutes of study a day.
Many schools, unlike the typical American school, are structured so there is minimal "study" but instead lots of experiential learning during the school day. Montessori schools are one of many examples.
I'm sure you'll hear from a few others in this thread who did well in high school simply by paying attention, and with little or no "study" and certainly no "prayer" for better grades.
If human beings can design a learning environment that minimizes the need for "study" then surely God can do even better. How big is your God?
Nearly all the people in the first century New Testament Church were not able to read.
Yet, they were able to achieve great things, and were the elect of God. To be a Christian does not require
"study" , year after year. It requires a heart towards God, and listening to the Holy Spirit within.
How much study does it take to understand the 10 Commandments, and to Love God with all your heart, and to
love your neighbor as yourself, and to repent from your sins.
Anonymous (12:57)
You stated "According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus predicted the apocalypse would occur within the lifetime of those around him. It is recorded in the canonical gospels six times. They attest that Jesus prophesied the same thing in four different settings, expressing it a little differently each time. Is there any room left to argue he meant something else? And yet this prediction still failed to come to pass."
It happened in 70 AD. I can tell you used to be an Armstrongist because you have conflated the 70 AD events with the Parousia events - the default Armstrongist script.
You cannot start with the Ambassador Bible Correspondence Course and expect to construct rational counter-arguments to the Bible in support of atheism. This is one of the failings of ex-Armstrongist atheists. They never knew what Christianity was in the first place.
"Read any of the ACOG booklets about child-rearing. Then, ask yourself, "How would your children turn out if you reared them in the same way God is rearing us"?
January 26, 2020 at 8:40 AM"
Who the hell said that God is rearing us? I didn't! I said that God has left us to do our own will in order to learn what that leads to. Look around the world, doing our own thing leads to disease, abuse and death. In other words it leads to great suffering, caused by ourselves not by God.
5.01 AM
Many engineering courses require their students to attend about 30 hours of classes per week, plus do at least 30 hours of homework in order to succeed.
How much study does it take to understand...
Ask Paul -- Festus said all his learning made him insane.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." - Albert Einstein
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." - Albert Einstein
So is a lot of ignorance.
No NEO, 1257 is not conflating events of 70 AD with the Second Coming. Taking the Gospels at face value, as in "this generation" and "you" is the majority view of theologians. No Jesus was saying that "this generation" meant "The generation to which these things happen" That is classic apologetic endeavoring to explain the obvious failure of the Gospel prophecies and statements about the then end times. No one was looking 2000 years into the future.
It is not an exclusive "Armstrongist" view. It is the common one save for the need of Evangelicals or those who simply can't accept a failed prophecy when they see it. Revelation was also a sincere prophecy playing off the Book of Daniel that also failed in 70 AD. Many now feel it was written in the Fall of 69 or 70 and not in the 90's. I understand many, including yourself and most here, would not accept that but that is a more credible reason the and time for Revelation to be written. It fit the needs of the day and not the so far into the future, who cares, why tell us that now, view.
You also said, "This is one of the failings of ex-Armstrongist atheists. They never knew what Christianity was in the first place."
And who are you to decide who and who did not really understand Christianity in the first place? That's about as smug and self righteous as it gets and another classic out for those who must find an explanation as to why some don't understand, or rather remotely agree with, what they think they so clearly see and do. You need to stop that shit as if you know. Personally, it is precisely because I know what Christianity is, why and how, that I can no longer take it at face value as either literally true in many places or even an original story.
I can tell NEO was an Armstrongist.
His comment is textbook Armstrongist apologetics on Matthew 24:34/Luke 21:32, meanwhile ignoring Mark 14:61-62/Matthew 26:63-64, Matthew 10:23, and Matthew 16:28, even when pains are taken to situate them all together. NEO is careful, even in that case, to pluck out Matthew 24:34/Luke 21:32 and assiduously continue to pretend the other passages don't exist. During all my time in Armstrongism, I never came across anyone who did anything else. Thanks to NEO's Olympic-Class mental gymnastics, it's a perfect record that still has yet to be broken.
I mean, it was my WHOLE POINT that Jesus stated in four different ways that the Parousia events would occur within the lifetimes of those around them. If a passage does not explicitly pertain to the Parousia events, then it is extraneous, and does not relate, such as the four other places where the gospels say Jesus said "not one stone will be left on another."
While not strange, it is nevertheless troubling how NEO can take texts that nowhere mention the events of 70AD, but DO say things like "you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven," and reason that those texts SOMEHOW do not refer to the Parousia events, but somehow IS talking about 70AD? When, at any time other than the Parousia, is anybody supposed to "come in the clouds of heaven"? Does NEO think that happened in 70AD, and aren't Parousia events at all? Reading NEO's comment, one could certainly be excused for thinking NEO is off by himself holding this opinion.
Simply gotta shake my head. But still expected. It's not often that anything less crazy comes out of Armstrongism.
Tonto
The first century Christians had less spiritual talents in the sense of not having the NT and not being able to read. And God will judge them accordingly. But First, they could have achieved even greater things if they had. Second, according to Revelation, it's principally the Philadelphian era who are offered the opportunity to be one of 144,000.
As far as bible study goes, I had your own faulty view initially. But it's wrong. The bible is written in such a way that many scriptures can be viewed from different angles and at various depths. So one can always learn something new going over familiar scriptures. The other point is that the bible,like other books on human behavior, radiates attitudes. One absorbed these attitudes during bible study or reading. Which is why people like Abraham Lincoln were always seen with a book under their arm.
So daily bible study is a means, a tool of Christian growth. The walk with the wise to become wise thingy. You are stunting your growth without this daily habit.
DD (11:30) and Anonymous (1:06)
I asserted that Armstrongists conflate the 70 AD events with the Parousia. And I am not going to parse through Matthew 24 line by line to indicate how the two are separate. I did that once before on this blog and it was a lot of writing and garnered no interest.
I was wrong to assume that this conflation was canonical for Armstrongism. Others make the same mistake. If I have mislabeled (1:06) an ex-Armstrongist - sorry. The best guide to this Chapter 24 can be found in Preterist writings.
I will stand by my statement that someone who goes from Armstrongism to Atheism has never known Christianity. I also believe that if you understood Christianity and abandoned it for Armstrongism, you never knew what Christianity was. Your testimony against Christianity in court of law would be considered weak and tainted. Who am I to say that? Someone who has a right to an opinion, just like you.
Wow, NEO on this thread is arguing nothing more than that he has a right to be prejudicial. I suppose he does, but does he think that's supposed to be a feather in his cap?
How is that different from arguing that he has a right to be wrong, to be pig-headed about it, and then to double-down on it as well? As though that's supposed to be to his credit?
NEO, don't believe us. It's right there in the bible. What 12:57/DD/1:06 are saying to you is there in your bible for you to read for yourself. Don't like it? It's not our fault. We didn't write it. Don't shoot the messenger.
Anonymous January 27, 2020 at 5:09 PM said..."Wow, NEO on this thread is arguing nothing more than that he has a right to be prejudicial. I suppose he does, but does he think that's supposed to be a feather in his cap? How is that different from arguing that he has a right to be wrong, to be pig-headed about it, and then to double-down on it as well? As though that's supposed to be to his credit? NEO, don't believe us. It's right there in the bible. What 12:57/DD/1:06 are saying to you is there in your bible for you to read for yourself. Don't like it? It's not our fault. We didn't write it. Don't shoot the messenger."
I'd say you, 12:57/1:06 and DennisCDiehl are just as guilty of the same warped mentality you accuse NEO of exhibiting.
Well, if the gospels are not eyewitness accounts, maybe the writers who were not eyewitnesses failed to capture the prevailing moods and attitudes of those times. They may have even misquoted Jesus.
Anonymous (5:09)
I have a right to a viewpoint just like other bloggers. The fact that you term my viewpoint a "prejudice" is, er, like the definition of prejudice. Is that supposed to be to your credit?
My expectation is that if I were to see your set of scriptures I would not place the same interpretation on them that you do. And I do not follow the Gerald Waterhouse dictum of "all you have to do is read it. It's right there in front of you." The only people who believe that Bible should rise to a concocted perfectionist state are fundamentalists and atheists.
NEO said...
My expectation is that if I were to see your set of scriptures I would not place the same interpretation on them that you do."
Actual definition of "prejudice" per Oxford:
1) Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
1.1) Dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions.
NEO admits his judgments were passed sight unseen, without even having read what he was passing judgment upon. He tells you what your argument was without even having read it. He's wrong of course, but this is immaterial to him. Even when it's pointed out to him, he refuses to listen.
It's not that his viewpoint is prejudicial. It's that he passes judgment on others based upon nothing more than that viewpoint. All he needs is his preconceived notions.
And then he hypocritically accuses others of being prejudiced without even knowing what the word means.
Plus, NEO passes judgment on others without knowing anything about them. He thinks he's god, I suppose, knowing who was and who was not a christian, and who is or is not a true Scotsman. All he needs is his omniscient opinions, which he conflates with knowledge.
5:14pm Isn't that enough childishness on your part?
"and who is or is not a true Scotsman."
Where did that come from? Your entire position is so convoluted it's hilarious.
10:53
-from the DNA science
-the slander of the Appalachian mountain people (as the supposed murderers of the natives while we all know it was the flu AND redrum redrum)
-and the declaration of arbroath claiming that the Scots come from the black sea. (the last one not being a NEO ism but I thought I might add that
Nck
Some of the people included by HWA as his "Israelites" have histories of behavior that rival those of HWA's "minds of animals" gentiles. The Irish certainly provide food for thought along those lines. (Not to worry! Most of my best friends have been "gentiles")
BB
8:55
The Irish were defined as "the thorn in the side". Which pretty much summarized the IRA behavior in a different age.
Of course the liberal parliamentarians at Whitehall who felt that "nature and laissez Faire economics" should prevail over aid, during the Potatoe famine did not get much attention. After all isn't laissez Faire economics the same as "the unseen hand" in academia?
Nck
I did an analysis of Liam O'Flaherty's "Two Lovely Beasts" for Lit class at Pasadena City College, years ago. It was about an ambitious farmer whose family made extreme sacrifices to raise two calves, I believe, during that Potato Famine iirc. It was my first brush with Irish culture, and was read before I knew about the IRA and Irish street gangs. Thin Lizzy and U-2 had not yet burst on the Rock scene.
Seems as if there are profound differences amongst the various white folk on the British Isles.
BB
Oh yes Biker.
Why do you think people loved to go to the american continent where more people died than the average lunar or Apollo mission.
In Scotland "the clearances" were executed because margins on sheep and wool were higher than on a Scottish village. Golf courses are built on otherwise busy hamlets.
And concentration camps were invented not by Germans but by the anglos because the Boers were not compliant.
This Friday the 31st they will be on their own again dwelling in their superiority complex as the soon to be 51st state of the usa.
Nck
At first it was disappointing not to feel the presence of the god os Israel (or any other, in fact) when I tried to make contact through prayer.
However, I am grateful for the remoteness after reviewing Exodus 33:20, where the god of Israel told Moses "But you cannot see my face, because no one can see me and live." He shows kindness in declining to incinerate people begging for a closer relationship.
I know this restraint is only temporary now that I have stopped stalking him, and that at the appropriate juncture he will have no compunction about throwing me into the lake of fire. But so far so good. However, as commenter John keeps reminding us, time will tell.
Post a Comment