A. I enjoy the occasional posting on the journey from belief and faith to agnosticism or atheism as expressed by Dennis Diehl reflecting his own journey out of the WCG ministry. Topics about Evolution vs Creationism or Biblical Errancy issues do have a valid place here on BannedHWA as part of our collective experience in WCG. Keep it up.
B. I do not enjoy and do not wish to endure postings on anyone's journey from belief and faith to agnosticism or atheism especially Dennis Diehl's no matter his journey out of the WCG ministry. The topics of Evolution vs Creationism or Biblical Errancy issues has no place here on BannedHWA. Stop it.
Feel free to simply pick A or B or explain your choice if you wish.
This exercise is designed to give all those who frequent BannedHWA the best experience possible and access to the myriad of experiences countless people have had in coming to grips with all that has transpired since first we believed WCG to be God's True Church.
I promise to abide by the majority view so help me who and whatever
Should the majority choose B, please fill in the gaps with your own views that Gary, I am sure, will be happy to include.
Thanks!
Dennis
63 comments:
A. Enough current ACOG ministers are secret atheists (or agnostics) that it would be petty and unwise to block ourselves from hearing his perspective in appropriate, not overdone, quantities.
"A or B" is a toxic WCG mindset. It's a false dichotomy in many cases such as this one. Dennis can learn to tone down a little bit and people who are bored or offended by his posts can learn to scroll past them from time to time.
I choose option A vehemently. I like a diversity of views and hearing the atheist/agnostic biblically critical view is helpful and eye-opening. I appreciate your journey and the candidness that comes with it.
This blog should not limit well written articles/arguments to a singular sphere. There are numerous faith based and free thought individuals that check this blog and content should reflect a diversity of beliefs.
Everyone has a different path out of Armstrongism and we should respect where that journey leads. I appreciate a good story and criticism that comes with that journey.
I vote for A.
A: I think that this sight should focus on our experiences with Armstrongism. Debates on creationism, etc. can be found on other sights. We should stick to what makes our experiences unique. Armstrongism, history and current news should be the focus. Want creationism, go to Answers in Genesis. Want apologetics, go elsewhere. Focus on what makes us unique.
Let's Vote: A. or B.
C. Sometimes I find it interesting to read what Dennis “The Spiritual Menace” Diehl has to say about his experiences, and sometimes I am not interested in some of the foolishness that he fell for. When I am in the mood, I read his writings. When I am not, I scroll past them.
Different people are interested in different things at different times.
If certain topics are left out of the postings, then those who would be interested in them miss out without being given any option.
If all topics are included in the postings, then everyone always has the option to scroll past anything by anyone that they are not interested in reading.
In real life, all topics do seem to have a way of coming up sooner or later anyway, one way or another.
Properly considering different topics and logically debating them is impossible if some viewpoints get censored. Ideally, wrong ideas should be logically crushed in the sight of all, rather than merely hidden from view.
REMEMBER: You cannot please everyone. But it is possible to make them all mad at the same time.
So, I suppose that C. = A. in this vote.
P.S. D“TSM”D, try not to do too much evil with your postings.
P.P.S. D“TSM”D, while I might be willing to listen to some of your ramblings for a little while, I certainly will not defend to my death your imagined right to your wrong views. If you ever get in trouble with God over your views, then under the bus you go, and I am out of here.
A
Enjoy the variety and most of the comments
Jim-AZ
I vote A!
Dennis does not threaten what I believe. I find his writings informative and educational. I have learned much from Dennis. When I started attending RCG then WCG the later AC. I was basically told what to believe. We were not encouraging to examine the doctrines of the church. Herbert used to say don’t believe me, believe the Bible. Then he would turn around and reticule the doctrines of other denominations. He would then state that the truth had been hidden for 1900 years. All these other church’s were deceived.
I appreciate having opposing issues to read. I now examine what I used to assume were truths. Stating something is true doesn’t necessarily make it true.
I hope Dennis keeps posting.
Jim-AZ
A
Neither.
You complicated matters by including evolution and creationism.
Let's Vote: A or B
It looks like Dennis C. Diehl is too much into politics and voting and trying to be a men-pleaser.
Everyone has already been voting all along, either A or B or some combination of the two, with the scroll wheel on their computer's mouse.
I'm pretty much ambivalent. However, as a general rule, I favor freedom of speech as opposed to censorship.
BB
I vote for Alfred E. Neuman !
Havent we done this before?
I vote for A. While my own journey has led me to a different destination, his experiences and perspective are just as interesting and valuable as mine and yours. We could all bury our heads in the sand and pretend that part of the fallout from Armstrongism hasn't been a partial/complete destruction of faith for many folks, but that would leave us with an inaccurate/incomplete picture of the consequences of our former affiliation. It is also important to be aware of the many questions and facts that led to that loss of faith. You don't have to reject God and the Bible, but you should be aware of the real issues that challenge BLIND faith in either. If you aren't willing to confront them, I question the strength and value of your conclusions in favor of God and Scripture. For those of us who are no longer enthralled with Armstrongism, one of the things that should have been reawakened in all of us is intellectual curiosity - and the ability to reach our own conclusions about the evidence available to us.
A
'"A or B" is a toxic WCG mindset. It's a false dichotomy'
This.
Why try to manipulate site visitors? That is what the bad side of the COGs do.
'Occasional posting???' This is a joke. Four of the previous five posts are from Dennis. This a like polls that slant their questions to give the desired outcome. Practically no one would oppose the occasional dissenting point of view. It has the benefit of refining and/or strengthening ones own convictions. It's the attempt to crash readers mental barriers through the 'magic' of repetition that's the problem.
This robs readers of their right to be in charge of their mental programming. It's cheating by lording it over others faith.
This is the immoral perk that practically all Herb ministers give themselves.
This is another example of once a minister, always a minister. A charge Dennis has denied. And it's not true because he says so, and as a former minister, his words are still the words of God.
""A or B" is a toxic WCG mindset. It's a false dichotomy in many cases such as this one. Dennis can learn to tone down a little bit and people who are bored or offended by his posts can learn to scroll past them from time to time."
Amen! I second the motion.
I vote A
I always enjoy reading Dennis's posts here on banned. Always, well thought out and presented in an interesting manner.
A for sure. As much A as I can get.
A. If it doesn't grab me I can scroll on. If it's not there we lose out.
Having your basic assumptions challenged every now and then is a good thing.
Von Howitzer
This is a forum. Definitely A. Any other approach would just be propaganda. We had enough of that in the past.
A, by all means. It is easy to scroll past boring or offensive material, so I can't see why any of us need to be protected from dull writing or dangerous ideas.
Thanks all for your input. Will take it to heart in keeping with the spirit of Banned.
A few thoughts in response:
I have written more of late because , I had the time, it was raining and I saw nothing in the pipeline being written and edited for future posting. There was a gap in upcoming posts by others. There is new COG postings coming down the line now so back to others.
Once a minister always a minister has nothing to do with anything. I am a teacher at heart and always have been. When an EMT-Intermediate just for a diversion when in ministry I was put against my wishes in an Advanced Life Support class by the company with ER people who did it all full time. It was three days and they had the book and I didn't. I read it during the lecture and we had a written test and practical from hell at the end. The Instructor took me aside with the classic Good News/Bad news talk. The bad news, he said, was that I was not yet a Paramedic. The Good news was that if I was he'd ask me to teach the class with him.
I have taught in four Massage schools by invitation and it is not uncommon for therapists to observe what I do with client in cervical neck/shoulder work for headaches and keyboarding aches and pains and ask me to teach them that.
I have been asked to come to schools and teach and explain Native American history and my meteorite collection to kids. I just enjoy teaching to those inclined to listen and sermons of the past were pretty much that way too.
It's a tendency of personality and not one of ministerial hubris and Ivory Tower living, which is your basic BS that comes up here from time to time by those who project.
So thanks all again. I do appreciate your input and asking a time or two along the way is just polite and helpful it seems. We do vote every four years after all so asking a couple times over the years should be no point of contention.
DD
Teaching does get in one's blood. A big part of my job is teaching people how to program, operate, and care for our equipment. It is new technology. And, of course, I've got to repair it as well for the customers. It is not unlike being an EMT for machines, but without the angst of patients occasionally dying. And, the people whom I serve are very, very appreciative. This month, there has been quite extensive training, because companies purchased a phenomenal amount of new equipment, to get it within the 2019 tax year.
It is not unusual upon attaining a bit of age, to begin functioning as mentors for the next generations. As Dennis pointed out, that works best when others come to you to request it. I recently trained three shifts of plant engineers for a major company. We have a lot of fun doing it, too. There's always an opportunity for humor. It's fun to establish common ground with a broad cross-section of humanity, and to bond with them in ways that helps them make more money, and put food on the family table. I especially enjoy bringing people out of their shells and spreading infectuous enthusiasm about our industry.
BB
8.11 PM
Yes, people can scroll past Dennis's posts. But the problem, at least in the past is that he would regularly smuggle his beliefs into the comments section of articles. Comments unrelated to the topic. Staying on topic like every one else would be appreciated.
C. It's Gary's blog, and we should respect that he can post whatever he likes. If he likes to share Dennis' work, then that should be good enough.
Freedom of speech requires a vote for A.
very much please include A
toby
I vote with A. Just because someone writes something that I may not agree with doesn't mean what they wrote has no value. Most of us should know what we believe and why we believe it, it doesn't hurt to be challenged every now and then. It doesn't require getting upset by it nor should it threaten us in any way, unless we are not comfortable with our own beliefs. That's my opinion.
definitely B (nothing personal against Dennis, or any of the others)
so tired of the untrue drivel ..this site was entertaining when it pointed out the craziness of people like Pack, Flurry, et al.
long, garbage posts from those that try to push their own theology, or lack thereof, are so boring I rarely read more than the first few sentences.
stoned steven is another waste of good bandwidth.
Pardon me but I am going to parse through the obvious. There is a human being behind this blog and he is the gatekeeper for what gets published. The owner of the blog has a purpose and a set of guidelines in mind. Any voting we do can only be informational.
Other than that obvious point, I do not like the way that DD introduced polemics into the structure of his questions. I enjoy discussions of Evolution, Creationism and Biblical Inerrancy (or Errancy for DD). I am much less interested in DD's regrettable personal journey to the wasteland of atheism unless it fits with some issue of Armstrongism. The question structure is based on the mistaken idea common among atheists that science and atheism jointly occupy the high ground against religion. The inanity of atheistic materialism argues otherwise.
A typical DD post is comprised of the following propositions:
1. DD believes that God does not exist.
2. DD loves nature.
3. DD wants you to be like him.
I think everyone should read at least one of his posts. Most will be able to identify the internal inconsistencies in the points above.
So I would uncomfortably select A with the understanding that the question is misstated and the final arbiter should be the blog owner.
A.
I actually think framing this in terms of "Dennis' Evolution/Inerrancy" makes it seem like this is not a response to HWA's MAJOR emphasis on these two topics. Several people I knew in the PCG said they first entered WCG because of GTA's lectures on evolution. HWA almost always explicitly mentioned inerrancy when he interpreted scripture.
To ignore these topics is to ignore two of the more important doctrinal issues in the COGs.
Some web sites I believe true Christians here should spend time looking at if they want to maintain a Christian faith and view some of the postings here.
COG- Big Sandy has a list of people to pray for
Our Daily Bread has some good Christian advice stories
John MacArthur has interesting Daily Devotionals
A web site by R. Albert Mohler, Jr
I vote "A".
Dennis, I don't visit this site as often as I once did, but it certainly is not because of your contributions. Thankfully, you have not walled off your brain/mind to further exploration and discovery. Religion tells a story, and so does science. Neither is very believable to me, but at least science is willing to update based on new discovery. In general, religion is not.
I have the freedom to visit this site, or not, and when I do, my scroll button is, at times, very helpful.
Stay well my friend and keep alerting, annoying and entertaining us.
I think A, as long as there is other stuff on here too. Dennis has given me the perspective of what some of those former ministers must feel, and I have learned to sympathize with them too. Some of the former ministers are victims as much as anyone else.
B. I do not enjoy and do not wish to endure postings on anyone's journey from belief and faith to agnosticism or atheism especially Dennis Diehl's no matter his journey out of the WCG ministry.
A!
neither.
Why does just about everything here on Banned have to be an article by DD, or voting about DD, or anything else DD..??
DD reminds me of a female high school student constantly needing attention and affirmation. He is a person who trashed all of reality because of one dicked-up human, HWA. How sad is it that he let that crackpot affect his outlook on spirituality and to give up on eternal life.
I can tell instantly by either the title, or first few sentences, that it is another log-winded article by DD and I skip them.
That being said, I support his right to publish whatever he wants because I believe in our constitutional rights, but I don't have to read any of it, because I have rights too.
I vote neither.
B for me!
Although I don’t think anything would stop Dennis.
Dennis periodically has a tantrum and says he’s done posting but he always comes back.
He messed up too many heads as a WCG pastor and can’t stop himself now so he continues from another viewpoint. It’s an addiction.
I vote for A.
It's odd how NEO thinks that Dennis posting his point of view is somehow shoving something down his throat. Is that what NEO also thinks he's doing to others when he posts? Or does he give himself a break he's not willing to give Dennis? If so, how does he justify that?
I vote A. From where we all came we should want everyone to be able to speak their mind without fear of being shunned or put down.
If this blog can be compared to "vomit spewn out of my mouth" I leave it in the eye of the beholder if that goes for the content topics (former or current cog experience (or the individual comments.
Even if so, I am inclined to look at DD's contribution as the edible potatoe parts in the brew.
Is it an effective marketing strategy to "convince" people to change opinions?
I don't care, as long as everyone is A uthentic and and a good mix of topics.
Dennis calls for that authenticity many times and even calls an impeachment vote on himself.
Outsiders could think this blog is an anti Thiel mega church blog. While on reality Thiel serves a "harmless" target to address larger issues in broader context.
Nck
7.07 AM
Blog owners never have the final say. It's the consumer that's king and queen. They can decide to abandon this blog and go to a better one. As far as I'm concerned, Dennis has largely taken over this blog. It would be more honest for him to start his own rather than freeload on the coat tails of this one. How many hits would he get if he did that?
Claiming the occasional posting says it all about his honesty. And he expects us to believe that ridiculous statement! Yep, a Herb company man.
Thank you all for your comments, suggestions and perspectives.
I never realized that Dennis is a "Herb company man" ...
Ha ha, that's funny!
Keep the jokes coming, 7:07. A little levity is appreciated in the wake of the craziness of WCG's lies-based, self-imposed implosion that they hilariously re-brand as a "MIRACLE", lol.
Anonymous (4:49)
I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I suggested that people have some exposure to DD's writing and I voted A. If you expected me to be euphoric over DD's contributions, I am going to have to disappoint you.
Ah well Dennis,
"Where one teaches, two learn."
Robert Heinlein
nck
B. Not because I want to censor anyone, but Dennis's posts are so long-winded and the grammar/punctuation reads like maybe he's been drinking . . ?
I'm sorry if this hurts his feelings. I could be way off base in that assessment, but the messages read like, "poor me, it was so hard to be a minister", so I just skip over them.
I vote A.
I don’t give a flying #%*!
So I vote C—Neither!
Dennis should create his own blog to ramble on in posts and comments all he likes. This’ll free up Gary’s blog to post more relevant posts by others about Armstrongism not Diehlism!
By the time that Satan's demon-possessed false prophets like Gerald Flurry and David Pack are done with their victims, some of them very well might become burned out atheists. The topic is closer to home than some might realize.
NEO said...
"I think you need to re-read what I wrote..."
Oh, I read what you wrote the first time. At your provocation I'll begin again, but this time starting by quoting you verbatim, and then proceed to clarify from the ground up:
NEO's opinon:
"A typical DD post is comprised of the following propositions:
1. DD believes that God does not exist.
2. DD loves nature.
3. DD wants you to be like him."
My opinion:
A typical NEO post is comprised of the following propositions:
1. NEO believes that Yahweh & Jesus exist.
2. NEO believes his religious beliefs are equivalent to proven science.
3. NEO wants you to believe like him.
In so many words, NEO is basically saying that Dennis getting to post his views is tantamount to shoving something down his throat, as demonstrated by his opinion of Dennis' posts quoted above, ("DD wants you to be like him"). But maybe NEO's accusations tell us more about NEO than anyone else.
When NEO posts, his articles are riddled with religious propositions mixed in with extractions from scientific research, from which he then goes on to draw conclusions which he hopes you'll accept as sound. If you accept his conclusion, how can you reject the premises?
By mixing and matching them together like this, it's not a stretch to understand NEO as intending his readers to fall for the implication that his articles of faith are just as true as the methodical research he mixes in with his religious beliefs, and that we should take them to be just as reliable as scientific claims founded rigorously on observational data. Of course they are not. They are oil and water. Apples and oranges. Iron and miry clay. Facts and fairy tales.
His posts reek of a deceptive attempt to persuade his readers surreptitiously to believe like him. Like Mary Poppins, does NEO think a spoonful of science will help him shove his beliefs down our throats? Before NEO accuses someone else, one might think he would take into account whether or not he appears to be above reproach.
But then NEO has the chuzpah to complain about Dennis? Pot, meet kettle.
By accusing Dennis, NEO has laid himself wide open to the charge that he is merely projecting his own instincts. If he knows that's what he would do, then that's his default expectation for others. When he points his finger of accusation at Dennis, he forgets he has three fingers pointing back at him.
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. NEO should have known that since he posts on this site too, when he throw accusations at others, he opens himself up to those accusations boomeranging right back at him, and hitting him with the same force with which he intended to hit others.
NEO is caught up on the horns of a dilemma of his own making: If Dennis is guilty, then NEO appears guilty of the same crime. If his accusation is true of Dennis, then I think NEO needs cough up a pretty good justification of why he isn't hypocritically doing exactly the same in his own posts.
On the other hand, if Dennis is innocent, then NEO owes him a pretty big apology, and he needs to cough up a pretty good justification of why he thought it was okay to attack his neighbor unjustly like this.
If NEO really believes Yahweh & Jesus exist, his sure has a funny way of showing it. He may talk a big talk, but he's not walking the walk. His behavior demonstrates a belief that they don't really exist after all, so he doesn't have to worry about breaking their commandments.
It's time for you to check yourself NEO. Take a step back and reconsider your ways.
Ooooh my, somebody stop anonymous 2:19 or donate........
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoCPHAR5pRw
nck
2:19 Should practice what he/she preaches, they're doing the exact same thing they're accusing NEO of doing.
nck said...
"Ooooh my, somebody stop anonymous 2:19"
Stop me...from doing what?
I'm tired of NEO trying to police this site like it was his blog every time somebody says something he doesn't personally agree with, and repeatedly resorting to false accusations in order to do it.
I would not have said anything more than just the 4 sentences in my initial post. If you don't approve of his lies and hypocrisy—unchristian behavior that's somehow supposed to advance christianity—being pointed out once in a while, you might want to consider that NEO more or less responded by begging me to do exactly that. He asked for it.
I support the free and democratic exchange of ideas, even for those I disagree with. But a false accusation does not constitute an idea. And if you and NEO expect me to be euphoric over NEO's contributions which cross over ethical boundaries, I am going to have to disappoint the both of you.
!0:59 should also practice what he/she is preaching. They're also doing the exact same thing they're accusing 2:19 of doing.
If it's hypocrisy to point out hypocrisy, then nobody can point it out without falling victim to it themselves, including 10:59.
12:01
I guess you didn't watch the you tube link yet. I thought you beat him like a dog.
My remark was a joke.
Nck
I noticed that the wording of B, the choice that he doesn't want us to pick, is a little aggressive/hurtful toward himself: "...don't want to ENDURE postings... ...ESPECIALLY by... ...STOP IT."
So, in the face of attempted manipulation, I pick B.
" And if you and NEO expect me to be euphoric over NEO's contributions which cross over ethical boundaries, I am going to have to disappoint the both of you."
Ouch! I wouldn't want to be on your bad side.
Judas Priest!
12.01 PM
So you support the free and Democratic exchange of ideas, unless they are a false accusation. That's similar to today's 'hate' speech. The losing side always claims false accusations, hate speech, abuse etc.
Dennis doesn't just 'post his views.' That's like ministers using the word 'today's àmessage' for their repetitive brainwashing sermons. A person who honestly posts his/her views doesn't try to crash readers mental barriers through the 'magic' of repetition, as is Dennis's habit.
Why dont you reconsider yours? Many meaningless words. You come across as very angry.
Anonymous said...
!0:59 should also practice what he/she is preaching. They're also doing the exact same thing they're accusing 2:19 of doing.
If it's hypocrisy to point out hypocrisy, then nobody can point it out without falling victim to it themselves, including 10:59.
January 17, 2020 at 12:06 PM"""
Where exactly did I say that it was hypocrisy to point out others hypocrisy?
If hypocrite is your word of choice then what I was pointing out was that you were being just as hypocritical as the hypocrite that you were condemning!
Post a Comment