Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!
With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable.
Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders
People thinking for themselves?! Using the brain God gave them?! Questioning things?! Questioning their (religious) leaders?! No, no, no, no! We can’t have that! God forbid!
According to the Great David Pack that is ... Because the Great Packster has issued this warning about using social media to the RCG members:
“During these difficult times, an extraordinary fruit has been borne—increased contact and communication with each other through social media. This is inspiring to see! As we find ourselves becoming more isolated by events we encourage everyone to continue to find unique ways to fellowship.
It is important to remember the Church’s policy that when 10 or more gather together for activities it is recommended than an elder should be present. Similarly, when using social media in a group of 10 or more, we ask that you include your local minister so all things can be done decently and in order (I Cor. 14:40).”
If you use your brain that reads as “Even when you don’t come to services, we still want to control every aspect of your life (and thinking) to make sure you don’t start to think for yourselves.”
This was not just a sound byte for inspirational purposes but a biased infomercial targeting belief in anything supernatural. We once again have the nearly insupportable materialist atheistic viewpoint.
First, Sagan makes a category error - after the fashion of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens. He cites that faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. It is safe to assume that he is talking about looking around in the material realm for some physical artifact that can be linked to God through some meaning intelligible to him. He is, then, looking for a demiurgic god - like something out of the Greek Pantheon or the many other pagan instantiations. He is sifting through contingent reality looking for a necessary being.
Second, Sagan advocates appreciation for the beauty of Nature without understanding that there is no explanation for his sense of aesthetics outside an endowment from a necessary being. Natural Selection has no credible explanation for aesthetics either as a philosophical or neurological function. We could go on to discuss further Consciousness, Being and Beauty but these are implicit issues rather than explicit in the Sagan informercial for atheism.
It was a nice touch for the makers of the video to characterize belief by showing a bunch of charismatics ranting at the fringe rather than Dr. Francis Collins giving a lecture on the genome. This reveals their essential politics.
We briefly interrupt this interruption of the blog to bring you Great Moments in Televangelism. Sit back and enjoy this vintage intro of the Ernest Angley Hour circa 1981- prepare to be amazed!
We should all be using these wonderful minds with which God/Nature (depending on your perspective) has equipped us. Skepticism is good. The scientific method is good. Neither excludes the possibility of God. I would also say that thinking which excludes the theology/thinking of our human past is wrongheaded and dangerous. We can't hold on to only those things that we can see, hear, taste, smell or feel. We must retain the ability to imagine or speculate about the existence of things we haven't actually discovered yet.
Dennis and I share a great respect and feeling of gratitude for John Shelby Spong. For me, he rescued the Bible from the Fundamentalish/Literalist perspective. He pointed the way for Christians to embrace science and scholarship, but he understands that it is also foolish to dismiss/reject something because of the flawed perspectives that we have brought to something in the past.
"Jesus becomes the captive of the hysterically religious, the chronically fearful, the insecure and even the neurotic among us, or he becomes little more than a fading memory, the symbol of an age that is no more and a nostalgic reminder of our believing past. To me neither option is worth pursuing. Yet even understanding these things, I am still attracted to this Jesus and I will pursue him both relentlessly and passionately. I will not surrender the truth I believe I find in him either to those who seek to defend the indefensible or to those who want to be freed finally from premodern ideas that no longer make any sense.” ― John Shelby Spong see https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/45659.John_Shelby_Spong
"Skepticism is good. The scientific method is good. Neither excludes the possibility of God. I would also say that thinking which excludes the theology/thinking of our human past is wrongheaded and dangerous. We can't hold on to only those things that we can see, hear, taste, smell or feel. We must retain the ability to imagine or speculate about the existence of things we haven't actually discovered yet."
Miller Jones
Well said. The human aspiration to connect with something that is beyond our experience and imagination is what makes us what we are- without it we're little more than hairless apes. This is our greatest strength and our greatest weakness at the same time.
I have read a little of Spong. A book on archaeology in Palestine, I think. You should also check out Dr. Peter Enns. He has a website that contains many lectures and interviews.
Reality is that most people repeat whatever they hear from their favorite "talking head". Original thinking apparently not required. Back in the day, HWA would tell the HQ congregation that when he got a parched throat on a hot day, he would drink half a Baby Oly, and pour the rest down the sink. Next thing you knew, members were repeating that as typifying their own personal drinking habits, as if nobody else had heard HWA say it.
I interact with a lot of people each day under normal social conditions. I can guarantee you that each day I'll hear something said on the radio, and then hear it plagiarized later in the day by people who apparently make it their own. Gotta laugh, but rarely call them on it.
NEO, I like many of the points made by Spong and Enns, but (as BB implies) we don't want to swallow any one perspective hook, line and sinker. Enns and I appear to agree on the concept of "God cannot be contained" or as he says "The issue is whether we are able to accept that our cognitive power–which can be limiting and deceiving as well as liberating and enlightening–is truly up for the task of grasping the divine." I also believe that most Fundamentalist Christians have a flawed understanding of inspiration, and how that concept applies to Scripture. BB, I think that we all borrow from here and there on a regular basis - it's the way our minds work. Something that you say might evoke something that someone else has said, or it may provoke further commentary here by others. The problem arises when we get everything from one place or when we regurgitate something without attribution. And we don't want to reflexively dismiss/ignore something just because we've heard it somewhere else before. Most of us give our own slant/interpretation to the things we gather from the garden of ideas, and those nuances may be worthy of our attention.
I remember the days of half a beer. One of my buddies used to sip half a bottle and sanctimoniously pour the rest down the drain - kind of a little legalistic ceremony of self-celebration. I was never a part of that movement.
Whatever flows into the human mind will tend flow out again. Like mirrors, we can become reflectors of our environment. This is why cult members infect each other with behaviors so effectively. This why repeated exposure to atheistic material can have an effect on the passive mind and, therefore, must be actively analyzed and understood for what it is.
But without Superbeings, how does one explain all the creatures and vegetation on this planet? Oh, I just remembered. Smart phones and associated software keep designing, upgrading and building themselves. Thanks for the reminder Dennis. You are such a intelligent and wise man.
Injecting only works for AIDS, nck. For respiratory applications, you spray the area directly in front of you, walk into the mist and take a deep breath.
(Oh, I was only being sarcastic for the press conference!)
Perhaps one could say that the super-beings were the Essenes because they were the real Jesus. The sermon on the mount was copied word-for-word from their writings. They went extinct within a short time due to their pacifist nature. When Rome adopted Christianity they started collapsing too. And when you follow Armstrong or Jesus you put your blind faith in a false reality and die to the real reality. It's a death cult.
The God of the Old Testament is the Jewish Race. If you worship the god of the old testament you worship the Jews. The Jews actually worship themselves. They chose themselves to take over the world and rule the world. Your god is whom you obey. Obey the Holy Days and the ten commandments and you worship the Rabbis that Jesus condemned.
Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother and wife, and children, and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Normal people who read that will think Christianity is bad. Only a Christian could reason around that one! They are more clever than any Ph.D. like Carl Sagan. Their IQs are tops.
Wasn't Carl Sagan some kind of druggie, into psychedelic drugs, or maybe he just said the right things so that all the psychedelic druggies could follow him. Its horrible to think of someone becoming the hero of the psychedelic crowd without actually tripping himself. I remember him from cancer treatment workshops. People used to imagine their cancer cells being eaten up by little packmans when they were having chemotherapy. I guess it didn't work for Carl.
For those of you who are travelling through the blogosphere inCOGnito here on the sabbath, I offer this gem: Sagan rhymes with Pagan.
However, Carl Sagan was one of the hyperintelligent, and much of what he had to say goes completely over the heads of those with average intelligence. This includes your ACOG minister.
thats funny that you say that BB. I have had several people tell me how intelligent Carl Sagan was. I brought up some of the theories explored by Stephen Hawkins and was told Stephen Hawkins was nothing intellectually compared to Carl Sagan.......ummm
22 comments:
#8:42AM
People thinking for themselves?! Using the brain God gave them?! Questioning things?! Questioning their (religious) leaders?! No, no, no, no! We can’t have that! God forbid!
According to the Great David Pack that is ... Because the Great Packster has issued this warning about using social media to the RCG members:
“During these difficult times, an extraordinary fruit has been borne—increased contact and communication with each other through social media. This is inspiring to see! As we find ourselves becoming more isolated by events we encourage everyone to continue to find unique ways to fellowship.
It is important to remember the Church’s policy that when 10 or more gather together for activities it is recommended than an elder should be present. Similarly, when using social media in a group of 10 or more, we ask that you include your local minister so all things can be done decently and in order (I Cor. 14:40).”
If you use your brain that reads as “Even when you don’t come to services, we still want to control every aspect of your life (and thinking) to make sure you don’t start to think for yourselves.”
This was not just a sound byte for inspirational purposes but a biased infomercial targeting belief in anything supernatural. We once again have the nearly insupportable materialist atheistic viewpoint.
First, Sagan makes a category error - after the fashion of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens. He cites that faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. It is safe to assume that he is talking about looking around in the material realm for some physical artifact that can be linked to God through some meaning intelligible to him. He is, then, looking for a demiurgic god - like something out of the Greek Pantheon or the many other pagan instantiations. He is sifting through contingent reality looking for a necessary being.
Second, Sagan advocates appreciation for the beauty of Nature without understanding that there is no explanation for his sense of aesthetics outside an endowment from a necessary being. Natural Selection has no credible explanation for aesthetics either as a philosophical or neurological function. We could go on to discuss further Consciousness, Being and Beauty but these are implicit issues rather than explicit in the Sagan informercial for atheism.
It was a nice touch for the makers of the video to characterize belief by showing a bunch of charismatics ranting at the fringe rather than Dr. Francis Collins giving a lecture on the genome. This reveals their essential politics.
We briefly interrupt this interruption of the blog to bring you Great Moments in Televangelism. Sit back and enjoy this vintage intro of the Ernest Angley Hour circa 1981- prepare to be amazed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcb2lion5qs
Feeling insecure NEO? Faith restrictions got you searching for ways to discount the obvious?
Dennis:
Not at all. But I could ask those same questions of you.
We should all be using these wonderful minds with which God/Nature (depending on your perspective) has equipped us. Skepticism is good. The scientific method is good. Neither excludes the possibility of God. I would also say that thinking which excludes the theology/thinking of our human past is wrongheaded and dangerous. We can't hold on to only those things that we can see, hear, taste, smell or feel. We must retain the ability to imagine or speculate about the existence of things we haven't actually discovered yet.
Dennis and I share a great respect and feeling of gratitude for John Shelby Spong. For me, he rescued the Bible from the Fundamentalish/Literalist perspective. He pointed the way for Christians to embrace science and scholarship, but he understands that it is also foolish to dismiss/reject something because of the flawed perspectives that we have brought to something in the past.
"Jesus becomes the captive of the hysterically religious, the chronically fearful, the insecure and even the neurotic among us, or he becomes little more than a fading memory, the symbol of an age that is no more and a nostalgic reminder of our believing past. To me neither option is worth pursuing. Yet even understanding these things, I am still attracted to this Jesus and I will pursue him both relentlessly and passionately. I will not surrender the truth I believe I find in him either to those who seek to defend the indefensible or to those who want to be freed finally from premodern ideas that no longer make any sense.”
― John Shelby Spong see https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/45659.John_Shelby_Spong
"Skepticism is good. The scientific method is good. Neither excludes the possibility of God. I would also say that thinking which excludes the theology/thinking of our human past is wrongheaded and dangerous. We can't hold on to only those things that we can see, hear, taste, smell or feel. We must retain the ability to imagine or speculate about the existence of things we haven't actually discovered yet."
Miller Jones
Well said. The human aspiration to connect with something that is beyond our experience and imagination is what makes us what we are- without it we're little more than hairless apes.
This is our greatest strength and our greatest weakness at the same time.
Miller:
I have read a little of Spong. A book on archaeology in Palestine, I think. You should also check out Dr. Peter Enns. He has a website that contains many lectures and interviews.
Reality is that most people repeat whatever they hear from their favorite "talking head". Original thinking apparently not required. Back in the day, HWA would tell the HQ congregation that when he got a parched throat on a hot day, he would drink half a Baby Oly, and pour the rest down the sink. Next thing you knew, members were repeating that as typifying their own personal drinking habits, as if nobody else had heard HWA say it.
I interact with a lot of people each day under normal social conditions. I can guarantee you that each day I'll hear something said on the radio, and then hear it plagiarized later in the day by people who apparently make it their own. Gotta laugh, but rarely call them on it.
BB
NEO,
I like many of the points made by Spong and Enns, but (as BB implies) we don't want to swallow any one perspective hook, line and sinker. Enns and I appear to agree on the concept of "God cannot be contained" or as he says "The issue is whether we are able to accept that our cognitive power–which can be limiting and deceiving as well as liberating and enlightening–is truly up for the task of grasping the divine." I also believe that most Fundamentalist Christians have a flawed understanding of inspiration, and how that concept applies to Scripture.
BB,
I think that we all borrow from here and there on a regular basis - it's the way our minds work. Something that you say might evoke something that someone else has said, or it may provoke further commentary here by others. The problem arises when we get everything from one place or when we regurgitate something without attribution. And we don't want to reflexively dismiss/ignore something just because we've heard it somewhere else before. Most of us give our own slant/interpretation to the things we gather from the garden of ideas, and those nuances may be worthy of our attention.
True 12:03
I just injected dettol. And it doesn't work.
Goodbye.
Nck
BB:
I remember the days of half a beer. One of my buddies used to sip half a bottle and sanctimoniously pour the rest down the drain - kind of a little legalistic ceremony of self-celebration. I was never a part of that movement.
Whatever flows into the human mind will tend flow out again. Like mirrors, we can become reflectors of our environment. This is why cult members infect each other with behaviors so effectively. This why repeated exposure to atheistic material can have an effect on the passive mind and, therefore, must be actively analyzed and understood for what it is.
But without Superbeings, how does one explain all the creatures and vegetation on this planet? Oh, I just remembered. Smart phones and associated software keep designing, upgrading and building themselves. Thanks for the reminder Dennis. You are such a intelligent and wise man.
Injecting only works for AIDS, nck. For respiratory applications, you spray the area directly in front of you, walk into the mist and take a deep breath.
(Oh, I was only being sarcastic for the press conference!)
BB
10:53
Spraying with "agent orange".
BTW Ronco well said.
Aspiration, the theme of the egret fountain.
Nck
Perhaps one could say that the super-beings were the Essenes because they were the real Jesus. The sermon on the mount was copied word-for-word from their writings. They went extinct within a short time due to their pacifist nature. When Rome adopted Christianity they started collapsing too. And when you follow Armstrong or Jesus you put your blind faith in a false reality and die to the real reality. It's a death cult.
The God of the Old Testament is the Jewish Race. If you worship the god of the old testament you worship the Jews. The Jews actually worship themselves. They chose themselves to take over the world and rule the world. Your god is whom you obey. Obey the Holy Days and the ten commandments and you worship the Rabbis that Jesus condemned.
Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother and wife, and children, and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Normal people who read that will think Christianity is bad. Only a Christian could reason around that one! They are more clever than any Ph.D. like Carl Sagan. Their IQs are tops.
Wasn't Carl Sagan some kind of druggie, into psychedelic drugs, or maybe he just said the right things so that all the psychedelic druggies could follow him. Its horrible to think of someone becoming the hero of the psychedelic crowd without actually tripping himself. I remember him from cancer treatment workshops. People used to imagine their cancer cells being eaten up by little packmans when they were having chemotherapy. I guess it didn't work for Carl.
For those of you who are travelling through the blogosphere inCOGnito here on the sabbath, I offer this gem: Sagan rhymes with Pagan.
However, Carl Sagan was one of the hyperintelligent, and much of what he had to say goes completely over the heads of those with average intelligence. This includes your ACOG minister.
BB
I have a gem for you as well. There exists hyperintelligent fools!
thats funny that you say that BB. I have had several people tell me how intelligent Carl Sagan was. I brought up some of the theories explored by Stephen Hawkins and was told Stephen Hawkins was nothing intellectually compared to Carl Sagan.......ummm
Post a Comment