Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders

Saturday, May 2, 2020

Musings...

Scoffing or making a simple an obvious observation?



Calling those who simply noticed that the "soon", "shortly" and "quickly" of prophecy have proven to be not so soon, shortly or quick, scoffers,  rather than those who sincerely notice and observe reality, is a common approach to a church or Apostle being mistaken and unable to admit it. 

While science done well MUST correct its mistakes. Ideas about how it all is in religion is more likely to cover them up and blame those who bring it to their attention. 

 The real problem is that the Church is not given to admitting it is mistaken on much of anything so new explanations must be given for why, in this case, "soon", "shortly" and "quickly" don't really mean soon, shortly and quickly as men count soon, shortly and quickly.  

"God is giving us more time" is an oft spoken apologetic for being mistaken and unable to admit it. 

First of all know that the first century NT writers meant soon, shortly and quickly as men count it.  "Just around our corner" was the intent. It was only after soon, shortly and quickly went "later", "longer" and "slowly" that new explanations for the concepts had to be invented.  This is what the writer of 2 Peter, not actually Peter,  but a much later writer  annoyed by the deaths of most original church members and those who were wondering where Jesus was after all the promises of his immediate return, was addressing. 

This audience reading this,  would know well the Apostle Paul's belief in the immediacy of the Second Coming in I Cor 15 and does not be repeated.  He eventually learned, as do all to this day, he also was not going to be of the "we who are alive and remain" crowd. 
Let's have a look at how "shortly"  going long was handled. 

2 Peter 3: 


First realise the author was referring to the last days as in their time. No one would be interested to know or teach that this is for thousands of years into the future. And no, it is not dual. He labels those who notice the problem and make the observation openly as scoffers.  They are noticers in fact. Honest, open and sincere noticers and willing to say so.  The rise of scoffers also prove it is indeed more the last days than ever!   Nice touch...

This was and still is a reasonable observation. Calling someone a scoffer is what you do when you simply can't admit or acknowledge that the observation is accurate
Now the sincere and honest noticer is labeled "willingly ignorant". I have never in my life met someone, religious or non-religious, that was willingly ignorant.  They may be delusional or sincerely mistaken but not by deliberate choice.  This is somewhat like the the charge that "those who believe in evolution simply don't want to obey God. They want to sin," which is to put it mildly, BS.  Who would do that if they really knew there was a god watching? No one I know. Noticing the evidence is not willingly ignorant or scoffing either. 
This is the beginning of the switch to the concept that the present time is merely a continuation of past events still unfolding. 
Now the real apologetic. First of all, when the original statements of "soon", "shortly", "quickly" and the concepts of "the hour now is" etc were voiced, there was NO indication or teaching that we should remember that God does not see time as we do.  And that His soon, shortly and quickly are not like ours so get that straight from the beginning.  
No...that comes only as apologetic for it not actually being soon, shortly or quickly as advertised. That is the purpose of this passage. Not to admit the obvious,  but to justify and turn sincere observing church members I assume, for who else would care?, into scoffers. Which by the way also proves time is short. 
Once again the call not to be ignorant and they don't get it. 
"Now you tell us" might be the lesson of the day here. Why the church was not told that God's days are not their days is because there was no need to make that up back then. Now, after short has gone way too long, there is a great need to issue an apologetic blaming the observer for being ignorant and scoffing rather than being wise and observant of reality.
Also, noticing church members might consider this as slack on God's part, but like days and time, God's kind of slack is not the same as theirs. 
This is the original apologetic of "God is giving us more time" and it is the fault of the scoffing and faithless church member, who in reality is simply noticing and observing the facts. 
Lesson: Those who notice and make proper observations are not scoffers in the real world. How much easier and more credible to say "I/we were sincerely mistaken" than to accuse them of being ignorant and unaware of just how "my ways are not your ways" they were, which is also another apologetic for against one making accurate observations about how things actually are. 
Far more often than the church wants to admit, "there is a way that seems right to a man.." that is right and the wisdom of the noticer, wise. 
IMHO


46 comments:

  1. An atheist's response to witnessing the second coming of Christ...

    "Well, I'll be damned."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shouldn't you have ended with IMNSHO?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is like a mathematical formula. The closer we get to Christ's second coming, the more frequently articles by Dennis mocking "soon," "shortly," "quickly" etc, appear.

    ReplyDelete
  4. SCOFFER (Noun): One who tells the uncomfortable truth to a fearful hearer who is on the defensive and would lose power (financial or relational) if he acknowledged that truth.

    If they call you a nut or a lunatic, they aren't afraid of what you're saying. If they call you a scoffer, you've hit on something that they know is one of their weak points, but that they can't admit for fear of losing the power (financial or relational) their group gives them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Bible states in Matthew that Jesus will return suddenly when people are not expecting Him.
    Revelation, however, says there will be a three and a half year witness by 2 people in Jerusalem who will have the power to do miracles.
    It seems that search engines and all the bibles have to be destroyed - because otherwise there will be billions who search on google and recognize what is going on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are deceived into thinking the anti Christ is God on earth already. That's why Jesus Christ returning will seem an surprise or invasion they have to fight.

      Delete
  6. Dennis:

    Since you have repeated, I will repeat:

    You may regard this as a sidebar, but I would like to tease out a statement that Dennis wrote for further consideration. Dennis wrote: "THE "SOON" AND "QUICKLY" WAS FOR THEM, NOT YOU OR US. IT WAS ALSO MISTAKEN AND A VERY FAILED PROPHECY OF THE FIRST CENTURY."

    I take exception. I hate to get exegetical because I know it bores lots of people, but... All of the chronology that I know of dealing with the Second Coming is relative save one scripture. For example, "I come quickly" does not provide us an absolute chronology it only gives a relative chronology. This is made even less certain by the statement in 2 Peter 3:8: "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
    This tells us that the divine view of "quickly" or "soon" may not be ours. We only live a few decades. We're all short-timers.

    But the repeated assertion from critics is that Christ said to his followers that he would return in a single generation. Use of the term "generation" gives us not an absolute Millerite date but it does give us an absolute span. We can safely assume that everyone of that referenced generation is long dead. And critics are avid in pointing out that Christ did not return within the allotted time period as promised. But this is what Mat 24:33-34 actually says (NET Translation):

    "So also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

    "All these things" is a phrase, from context, that refers to the 70 AD events. This phrase is used twice in the passage and it clearly excludes the return for Christ as something that is to happen in the range of one generation. The first sentence cited above draws this distinction. Instead the scripture invokes relative chronology ("near") to describe The Return while the 70 AD events are bound by absolute chronology ("generation").

    The Church, without our later perspective and including Paul, misunderstood this. Interestingly, the Church down through the ages has never tried to hide any of this. The misunderstanding is undeniably there for all to see and learn from. (One of the reasons I am not a literalist - only fundamentalists and atheists cherish literalism for their different reasons). Its not like this slipped by the Church for millennia only to be discovered by Bart Ehrman when he was an undergrad. The Church always knew it was an issue.

    (Continued with Mark 9:1)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Continuation

    Regarding Mark 9:1: "And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.""

    Note that the witness is of the Kingdom of God. It does not state a reference to the logistical Return of Christ. The inclination is to deduce that if the Kingdom of God has come then Christ's logistical Second Coming has happened. But the Kingdom of God broke with power into our reality ideologically and in spirit during Christ's lifetime. (Matt 12:28, for example.) The Armstrongist interpretation was always that this statement referred to the Transfiguration since it seems to be almost a preface to that event in the structure of the scripture. I favor a different interpretation. The "power" of the Kingdom was manifest through the resurrection of Christ, the bestowal of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the Church - the Body of Christ on earth.

    Mark 8:38 does in fact make a reference to the logistical Return of Christ. We must ask how this verse and Mark 9:1 are related. Is there a topical flow between the two? There is a demarcation of a transition between the two verses with the words "And he said to them" (ESV) as if 9:1 may have been spoken at another time and place. To me, your argument would be best supported if there was a single unbroken thread between these verses and I am not sure we can posit that.

    Another issue that argues against connecting the logistical Return in verse 38 with the spiritual/ideological interjection of the Kingdom in verse 1 of chapter 9: Christ in Matthew 24:36 states that he himself does not know when he will return logistically. Why would Christ then in 9:1 make a contravening statement predicated on the idea that he does know when he will return? This supports the immediate spiritual/ideological coming of the Kingdom rather than Christ's logistical Return for verse 9:1.

    So, it was not a failed prophecy. It is just that its fulfillment is yet pending.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TLA

    There are approximately 4 billion people on earth who don't have a clue what WWII was about.

    Leave alone expecting a christ of another religion.

    Nck

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry 749 for the repetition. I get the scoffer theme behind the scenes fairly often and it tends to stay on my mind. It's a common charge for simply observing what's actually not going on seems hard for many to accept at face value without a "yeah but.." This is for the newbies to the blog who get charged with this when leaving a splinter.

    NEO, you lost me in the twists and turns somewhere in there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well duh, I wonder why backsliders are called scoffers? Could it be because the bible prophesied them?

    2Pe 3:3 - Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

    Interesting, such a simple explanation and it didn't require 1064 words!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have a question for everyone here that was serving as a minister in one of the COG’s: why were you guys in the GOG’s? Was it power? True faith? A combination of both? Did they ask you to become a minister? Did you pursue it?
    I’m trying to figure out how it works. Because most ministers that I’ve met seem to be reasonable intelligent people. So why did you guys fall for it? And why and when did you decide that all of it was nonsense?

    ReplyDelete
  12. 2Pe 3:3 - Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

    Great! So when the Church of God Seventh Day threw HWA out for his nutty doctrines,, they weren't scoffers, as we weren't in the last days! And if we aren't in the last days now, Dennis and company won't be scoffers! I like the way this Peter guy thinks!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I suppose that since we were past participants in a group that dealt in cliches and shibboleths, we need to be reminded from time to time of how simplistic our past thought processes were. WCG/HWA + splinters had cliched answers for every occasion, the challenging of which "prove all things" did not include. "Prove all things" meant "Accept what we are telling you as truth, lock your mind, and forever hold your peace."

    For some unknown reason, those with locked minds take childish delight in coming here to throw those cliches at us on a somewhat regular basis. My delight comes from the knowledge that when they indulge in such a fight, often it indicates that this reflects the fight that is taking place in their own minds. They are fighting internal questions that are fatal to Armstrongism, and are beginning to realize that simplistic cliches simply don't cut it.

    BB

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Anonymous Anonymous said...
    Well duh, I wonder why backsliders are called scoffers? Could it be because the bible prophesied them?

    2Pe 3:3 - Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

    Interesting, such a simple explanation and it didn't require 1064 words!"

    That's it! That nails it!

    ReplyDelete
  15. A few days ago on another thread (Dave Pack: Christ could literally return at any time) I thought NEO presented an interesting argument worthy of consideration. But then in comments re: "I Don't Know....Therefore ____" he revealed how he really thinks. If he disagrees he just pulls out the ol' race card! Lost any respect I had for his opinion right there. So I'm not bothering to try to follow "the twists and turns" in the above.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dennis, why didn't you answer 11:12am? Denial of the truth? We know, you've said it yourself. You desired to be a Minister. That's minister with a capital M, not lower case m where you merely serve. You have an ego which presents itself here often. Just admit it, that's the first step of recovery.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 12.18 PM
    In my view, the "race card" is a idiosyncrasy of NEO. Other than that, I find his comments worthwhile. You seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
    It's not uncommon for humans to have idiosyncrasies. For instance, BB is the media parrot on this blog, and Dennis (the scientific) has sometimes ignored comments that don't fit his narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous said...
    Dennis, why didn't you answer 11:12am? Denial of the truth? We know, you've said it yourself. You desired to be a Minister. That's minister with a capital M, not lower case m where you merely serve. You have an ego which presents itself here often. Just admit it, that's the first step of recovery.

    LOL, you and my supposed ego. I saw the question and said to myself "I have explained my background, intentions, motives, desires to pastor, story and outcomes so often here over the past decade here on Banned that if I obviously do it again I will be "here we go again"-ed to death. So I opted to let all the other former pastors speak up and tell their story...which is why his question was not answered since they aren't here.

    If 11:12 is new and reading this, I'd be happy to email or chat about it with you personally.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dennis, 11:12 here. Nope not new. Sooo... You were concerned that telling your story for the nth time would be "here we go again" but you weren't concerned about the "here we go again" of all your other posts, including this one. You repeat yourself so often it's hilarious. As I said, admitting your ego problem is the first step in recovery! If you're going to post give us something different. Give us pics from your telescope. Give us advice on how to relax tense muscles. Your atheism is nauseating, unwanted, and pathetic! Please don't give me your old "well then you post something". If I wanted to post a thread on this insubstantial blog I would.

    ReplyDelete
  20. nck - I am guessing about 100 million people in the USA have no idea what world war 2 was about, who the enemy was, and in some cases it ever happened.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous (12:18 and 3:39)

    I offer not apologies about the example I used. I don't know why you people are so sensitive about Dumpty. He doesn't really try to conceal much. Maybe you should let him defend himself.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Look, there are always going to be people who like to put us into boxes. Some of us have attempted to be very patient and to answer and explain things very carefully, over and over and over. But, the same assholes ask the same questions and make the same accusations repeatedly as if we had never answered them. I would have to believe that this is because they can't intelligently refute the ideas that we express with which they happen to disagree.

    Ever sit in a classroom that has been coopted by a disruptive underachiever? I mean one that refuses to be ignored, almost makes you believe he or she has Tourette Syndrome? Well, we've got a couple of 'em here on Banned, and apparently they like to attack one guy's distant past experience as a minister, another's occasional minority perspectives (which we really need more of!), and the guy who reads current events, distills them, and comes up with Occam's Razor type conclusions instead of redneck militia conspiracy theories.

    Most of us regulars realize that there are "little lambs" here who are in the process of leaving Armstrongism, so we meter what we say carefully soas not to drive them back into the fire. The manure stirrers who think everything here is just a joke and that people are their own personal toys to mess with are doing damage not to us regulars who have thick skin, but to the people who are emerging from the clouds and confusion and seeking help. This blog could be so much more effective in its work if certain parties would just quit assing around and go find other entertainment.

    BB

    ReplyDelete
  23. Byker Bob:

    Fine, well written analysis. Likely to be ignored by the people who need it the most.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am betting my life that Jesus never came the first time and is not coming the second time.

    Salvation based on faith is stupid. The world is so full of lies, including lies about the bible and how we got it, that nobody can get to the bottom of all the bullshit. Not even Bart Ehrman or Carl Sagan Head. Any god who expects us to dig to the bottom of a bottomless pit of lies is a cruel god who demands the impossible. You do more good mowing a widow's lawn.

    ReplyDelete
  25. For some fresh material, Dennnnnnnnis could analyze the following site:

    http://gnosticwisdomfoundation.org

    It's a "new" way to show the folly of religion.

    P.S. the extra n's are to make up for the times I didn't use enough.



    ReplyDelete
  26. 4.05 PM
    True for some. But many will fight Christ on His return because they hate Him and His laws.
    Millions hate God.
    Even some members in the ACOGs are God haters.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 12:18 Really? How did NEO's post on that thread reveal himself as a racist? I think you're reading your own prejudices into others' comments. He used an example, nothing more. Oh the sensitivity!

    km

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dennis, long time no hear, just popping my head in here to see what's going on at the Banned blog. Very good points in this post.

    Hope the virus is not weighing down too much on everyone here.

    Apropos to believing the words "behold I come quickly", there is a sort of mind experiment which I've always thought is somewhat revealing.
    If I were to be asked to make a bet, in writing, that J. Christ is *not* coming back within [any arbitrary number of years of my remaining lifetime], where the stakes were everything I own or would ever own, I would sign the bet in a heartbeat, I really would. Absolutely no hesitation.
    Now, correct me if Im wrong, but my guess is that you would too, as would most "real" atheists ("real" meaning those who have actually studied the Bible and discarded it because they realized it to be sorely sorely wanting). Maybe you have other reasons that you wouldn't commit yourself in writing to such a wager, but they probably wouldn't be that you have some doubt that JC *might* come back.
    On the other hand, the corollary is that I really honestly doubt any believer anywhere would commit themselves in writing, to surrender all of their earthly possessions, that JC is returning within any arbitrarily selected number of years of their lifetime.
    Even though most seem to say they believe he is returning "soon".
    Maybe someone somewhere would commit themselves to such a wager. But I believe no believer would ever really do that, where the stakes would be losing all their earthly possessions, or even some monetary sum.
    In other words, I think even believers harbor doubt that maybe, just maybe, it's all an ancient ruse, not really grounded in reality.
    Sorry this was longer than I intended it to be.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  29. KM

    I don't think Anonymous (12:18) and Anonymous (3:39) are accustomed to the careful parsing we do in this blog. My commets:

    Anonymous (12:18) apparently believes that if ones use the example of a reprehensible politician ones thinking processes are broken and can't be trusted in any context. This is an odd and puzzling conclusion. Maybe she knows a foot that fits into that shoe and is sensitive about it.

    Anonymous (3:39) feels that if one recognizes that racism has been a dynamic force in Armstrongism and writes about it that is an "idiosyncrasy." I think it is a responsibility. Enough has been swept under the WCG carpet.

    These comments are revealing of the authors as all comments are.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Blogger Tonto said...
    An atheist's response to witnessing the second coming of Christ...

    "Well, I'll be damned."

    May 2, 2020 at 7:16 AM


    Oh man! I am totally stealing that one for my repertory. Should I credit you as the author, or consider it comes from tradition?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous May 3 at 12:07 AM said:

    "Any god who expects us to dig to the bottom of a bottomless pit of lies is a cruel god who demands the impossible."

    That's not by any means the only evidence that the god under discussion here is cruel. He also persuaded his Chosen People that shrimp are not fit to eat, and bagels are.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "If I were to be asked to make a bet, in writing, that J. Christ is *not* coming back within [any arbitrary number of years of my remaining lifetime], where the stakes were everything I own or would ever own, I would sign the bet in a heartbeat, I really would. Absolutely no hesitation.


    As would I Michael, as would I. That kind of bet is as sure a thing as one can get in this life.

    If he doesn't return in said time you've doubled your possessions.

    If he does, who cares, you won't need worldly possessions anyway.

    Where can I sign up?

    km

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thanks, NEO. I felt very strongly that it needed to be said. You are quite right, though, about those whom we should properly call the "willfully ignorant".

    BB

    ReplyDelete

  34. 2 Peter 3:

    “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,”


    Prophecy fulfilled: Garner Ted Armstrong came scoffing that he had to obey God, and satisfied his own lusts with Ambassador College co-eds, stewardesses, secretaries, and masseuses.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "You seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater."

    Sometimes there never was a baby. Just standing water.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The holy Spirit has informed me that I will live till the second coming, and I'm old.
    And yeah yeah, I can't prove this to you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 4:24am If you can't prove it then what was the point in the holy Spirit revealing this to you?

    Are you sure it was the holy Spirit and not the unholy spirit?

    ReplyDelete
  38. 4:24 Anonymous 5/4/20

    We know this can't be true because the mark of a true intellectual and having the Holy Spirit is whether you can kick everyone's ass on the blog. Cage fight at the feast anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  39. I see that I struck another nerve, but not enough for the blog coward to reveal who he is.

    km

    ps I have absolutely no problem if one day the women play and say:

    1Sa 18:7 - And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.


    ...and km his one. roflmao


    Cage fight to the death!


    Unless of course you're going to tell us that David didn't have God's Holy Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  40. For those with sensitive ears, what do you really think that Jesus was saying here?

    Luk 14:34 - Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?

    Luk 14:35 - It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill


    The Greek word for dunghill is kopria. Was Jesus saying feces, poo, or shit?

    How about Paul?

    https://thinkhebrew.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/pauls-profanity/

    km

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anon 2:43 a.m.
    I'm 4:05 and I totally agree with the comments you made. Indeed I agree about the God hater's comment. I'd say it could be a major epidemic more so amongst the Ministry than anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 8.43 AM
    When the holy spirit communicates to a person, it has a unique emotional feel that God does not allow Satan to duplicate for obvious reasons.
    God's message was for me, and me alone. But I put it out there because people cannot examine an idea if they are not exposed to it. Which is the whole point of this blog and human communication.
    The alternative is an echo chamber with everyone "speaking the same thing," just like in every police state and abusive cult.

    ReplyDelete
  43. May 4 at 7:51 PM confides: "God's message was for me, and me alone." Then he "put[s] it out there" for people to examine.

    This blog is full of doubters, 7:51, some of whom scoff openly. Didn't it occur to you that your god might get pissed if you reveal the content of private communications? Most administrators in su circumstances would reject an applicant for membership in their organization.



    ReplyDelete
  44. 7.34 AM
    Many of God's private communications to individuals is recorded in the bible.

    ReplyDelete