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
Commercial Break: A Possible Problem With the 6000 Year Plan of God?
Fudge Bob Square Pants notes:
"...the creation of Adam or his departure from Eden was around 3983 BC."
...therefore might I suggest...
3983 BCE + 2021 CE = 6004
This would suggest the 6000 year plan of God for man is possibly over now and prophetically "Are we possibly 4 years into the Millennium and didn't know it?"
A possible problem with the 6000 year plan of God in North America.
How old are the Clovis sites in North America?
While Clovis sites are found throughout North America, the technology only lasted for a brief period of time. The dates of Clovis vary from region to region. In the American west, Clovis sites range in age from 13,400-12,800 calendar years ago BP , and in the east, from 12,800-12,500 BP.
East Wenatchee, Washington Clovis points in situ
Closer to Biblical home base...
JERICHO ISRAEL
Jericho Israel challenges the commonly held belief among scholars and historians that the oldest civilizations in the world belong to Egypt and Mesopotamia. Excavations over the last 100 years have produced evidence of habitation off and on since the Mesolithic Age. Archaeologists date excavated remains anywhere from 9,000 B.C. to 7,500 B.C., making Jericho Israel the oldest city in the world, and, arguably, the world's oldest civilization.
May I suggest I'm just sayin'?
47 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Dennis seems to have forgotten the "pre-Adamic hominids" scenario.
Which also is one dodge around some objections to the overall Genesis scenario, as the Eden evictees could have "known" any number of soulless bi-cameral-minded pre-Adamic animals to begin their own post-Adamic bloodlines.
Yes, the 6,000 Year Plan defies science, history and reason; but when has that ever stopped (or even slowed down) an Armstrongite? Unfortunately, the 6,000 Year Plan is only one of many unsupported notions which Herbie put forward and his followers have continued to cling to despite all evidence to the contrary (e.g. Church Eras, Place of Safety, Church History, Tithing, British Israelism, German Assyrian identity, Herbie as Elijah and/or Zerubbabel, etc.). Let's face it: There are a lot of potential problems out there in the wacky world of Armstrongism!
Dennis……you doubter and troubler of Rabbi Squarepants Bob the prophet. Bet you voted for ‘Sleepy Joe Biden’ lol. All that said, just to claim a 6000 year old earth just does not cut it today. Christians need to get their thinking caps on and be able to present solid arguments backed with empirical evidence that their claims and reasonings are indeed correct and will stand under the spotlight of critical inquiry. Within the cog movement that thinking has being sadly lacking and has lead to much derision against it. And rightly so in many cases. Good post.
Most of the people these guys are preaching to have at best a very superficial understanding of the sciences. So, once someone convinces someone that they're from God, to the extent that they become a member, they'll believe anything the ministers tell them. We think we might assist people to truth and safety with real facts, but reality is facts don't even register.
The feast of tabernacles is at the going out ("end" - Strong's 3318 - Ex 23:16) of the year. Using contemporary names of months, is creation week of Genesis 1 Tishri 16 - 22....3980 BC? Just askin'.
Anonymous said... Dennis seems to have forgotten the "pre-Adamic hominids" scenario.
=================================
Oh my gosh, I forgot all about the pre-Adamic hominid scenario! lol
The humans before "Adam" were just as much a human as any modern today. The "PAHS" is an apologetic for those who need the Adam and Eve tale to be literally true and the actual origins or humanity, which it is not. The Bible is neither the greatest nor most accurate book ever written. That a book declares itself to be true doesn't actually make it so.
Dennis has sinneD again. He actually came up with PAHS by shortening “ pre-Adamic hominid scenario” into PAHS in order to make his criticisms sound real. However, all he did was create a fake slogan to poke fun at a group of people. But all his effort is just a citegolopa for his personal biases without foorp. Try again sinneD, you can do better.
The people that lived in what Hoeh described as the Pre-adamic period (let us say, prior to 6000 years ago) had the same genetics that we have now. The races of mankind were well established before the appearance of Adam. By this I mean the modern haplogroups have been in existence well prior to any date claimed for Adam. The Jews are haplogroup J and haplogroup J has been around for abot 43,000 years. Hoeh's pre-Adamites are us.
Regarding "The Noah flood leeched (sic - that is an aquatic blood sucking animal) objects, giving rise to the inaccurate carbon 14 dates given in this article" ...
Radio carbon dating is good for back to around 50,000 years - well before the Adamic period under discussion. RC dating can be verified by other dating methods that do not involve any kind of leaching from a putative global flood. There was no global flood to do the global leaching to mess up carbon 14. There is no geology to support a global flood. There was a large localized flood in the Middle East that can be supported with evidence.
Regarding "The Bible is neither the greatest nor most accurate book ever written. That a book declares itself to be true doesn't actually make it so."
The Bible reflects the human scribal touch - just as in our era we may find, for example, many differing translations. "God let his children tell the story." Whether or not it is the greatest piece of literature is a subjective matter in this era. The observation "that a book declares itself to be true doesn't actually make it so" does not make the Bible untrue or, for that matter, any book that makes that self-declaration. That statement is just a political sound bite, gratifying to the writer but carrying no real weight.
Excuse me, but Hoeh did not create that teaching. It was out there in christian circles long before he wrote or taught about it. It’s interesting that Bullinger was a very popular christian scholar until modern day christians found out some of his teachings went against their teachings. Now they try to screw him too.
Is it Hoeh you are against, or the teaching? If the teaching, why not equal down putting on those christians who taught the same thing before Hoeh came along? Criticisms I like and enjoy, especially when correct. But personal criticisms based on personal bias and individual unfair attacks is a whole different matter, besides, that kind of criticism isn’t christian, it’s simply antagonistic for self aggrandizement.
I know that various forms of the Pre-Adamic Man idea have been around for a while. I once encountered it in a systematic theology I found in a university library written in the late 19th Century. There the attempt was to trace Blacks to Pre-Adamic origins - the idea was that Blacks were really animals and not men at all. I do not recall what denomination the theology was connected to. But I have heard this same argument from Armstrongists.
Hoeh believed that archaic men such as Neanderthal and Homo Erectus were Pre-Adamic. This implies that all modern humans are descended from Adam genetically. Genetic studies do not support this. I am against both Hoeh and his teaching. I stand also in opposition to others in the past who taught ideas similar to Hoeh's ideas.
My criticism is not based on personal bias but on science that clearly demonstrates the impossibility of Hoeh's ideas on human origins. And I am not going to sort through the strange ideas that Bullinger had, for instance, because that is not of interest to me or the readers of this blog. I have written elsewhere on this blog about these issues, for instance:
If you want to defend Hoeh, you should defend him with logical argumentation rather than trying to besmirch his critics. That is not good form. Someone once wrote "that kind of criticism isn’t christian, it’s simply antagonistic for self aggrandizement."
neo wrote: If you want to defend Hoeh, you should defend him with logical argumentation rather than trying to besmirch his critics. That is not good form. Someone once wrote "that kind of criticism isn’t christian, it’s simply antagonistic for self aggrandizement."
1. When you step in and use real argumentation then someone should step in and rebut that with the same. But to generalize against a specific person because he was connected with a group you constantly attack with more generalities then it is perfectly within biblical teaching to rebuke it.
2. “So formal logic detached from the yes-or-no game is useless and even dangerous. It’s an unnatural way of thinking, a contrived technique of going from unwarranted assumptions to foregone conclusions.” Rudolph Flesch, Ph.D.
3. “The present system of logic rather assists in confirming and rendering inveterate the errors found on vulgar notions than in searching after truth, and is therefore more hurtful than useful.” Francis Bacon
4. “I appeal to common observation, which has always found these artificial methods of reasoning more adapted to catch and entangle the mind, than to instruct and inform the understanding.” John Locke
So, Hoeh went to AC. Was a member of the RCG/WCG. Was taught by Armstrong. Then wrote articles, etc. for college and church publications. Where did his research come from? Mostly christian sources, and secular history, outside ac and wcg. What he found as sources he quoted in his papers. But, his evil was that he was involved in the modern critic created curse word, Armstrongism. So, by quoting christian resources to prove his point, he is bad, not the christians who gave him their proof. Same for secular historian sources. And, worst of all, he actually quoted the bible at times. Now he’s really an Armstrongite.
So, what is Armstrongism? For the critics it is their “polite” curse word for belittling other people and their beliefs.
For those who actually read and studied the bible, and publications, Armstrongism is: Don’t you dare believe me, a man, until you have proved to yourself what the bible says. If you don’t that is your problem. Remember, study as a workman to prove all things, then hold on to what is good.
So, what if Hoeh messed up with the neanderthal etc.? What would it change? Would you write a great glorification of him, and pardon him for using christian resources which led him to his conclusions? I doubt it.
“When men and women agree, it is only in their conclusions; their reasons. are always different.” — George Santayana When critics and criticized disagree, it is only in their conclusions; their reasons are always the same.
NeoTherm said…”I know that various forms of the Pre-Adamic Man idea have been around for a while. I once encountered it in a systematic theology I found in a university library written in the late 19th Century. There the attempt was to trace Blacks to Pre-Adamic origins - the idea was that Blacks were really animals and not men at all.”
I remember as a teen assembling a range of sources on various topics like the origins of man from various Xian groups that would be pro or anti this or that theory or doctrine. Anyway I remember coming across the pre-Adamite theory and it’s variations. IIRC they were something like what Armstrongism taught as in a world before Genesis 1 in which pre-Adam humanoids existed and/or dinosaurs existed. Then there were others that taught the Satanic seed doctrine in which Satan had sex with Eve and she gave birth to blacks and/or Jews. Then there was another view that Adam and Eve were created by God and lived in Eden while other races like black, yellow etc. lived outside Eden and were animals not made in God’s image. Sometimes there was a mixture of these various theories. I ended up agreeing and concluding with the more conservative view that dinosaurs existed with man in the antediluvian era and that all mankind came from Adam and Eve and later Noah and his sons. It was this that unsettled me when I started learning about HWA /WCG teachings since I thought if WCG is God’s true Church then how can they teach a falsehood like the pre-Adamite theory. Of course as I grew in understanding I’ve since learned that wasn’t the only falsehood taught as true.
I am not going to respond to everything you wrote. I don't think it would be constructive. You give evidence of being impaired by indoctrination.
You wrote, "But, his evil was that he was involved in the modern critic created curse word, Armstrongism."
That is facetious. Hoeh's made mistakes due to his attempt to support certain pseudo-scientific ideas. I have nothing against Hoeh. In later life he abandoned Armstrongism and became a Christian. He also renounced his writings. I consider him to have been a brother in Christ.
The fact that other Christians may have made similar mistakes does not mitigate Hoeh's error. The question is whether those who held errors eventually recognized those errors and grew beyond them. Hoeh did this. But the many little apocalyptic Millerite denominations did not and still follow the ideas that Hoeh renounced.
2. You wrote, "Armstrongism is: Don’t you dare believe me, a man, until you have proved to yourself what the bible says."
That is not even remotely what Armstrongism is. That is nothing more than a misleading sound bite. In fact, HWA did not support that idea unconditionally. I heard him state that this principle was for people who were just beginning to develop an interest in Armstrongism. He stated that church members were beyond the inquiry stage and should simply believe whatever he said without question.
I could recommend that you read one of my posts on what Armstrongism is but I do not believe that would be beneficial. My guess is that you are new to Armstrongism and do not know much about it. Before you slide further, you need to continue to visit this blog.
I will not be responding to any more of your comments.
neo said: You give evidence of being impaired by indoctrination. reply: Ah, so you’ve never looked in the mirror.
neo:
I will not be responding to any more of your comments.
reply: Of course you won’t. It is obvious you got caught, and tried your best to obviate your bias. And, anyone with half a mind can see the fallacy of your argument. For ex. you could have said, I’m going to criticize Hoeh for the errors he made, based on other christian statements that didn’t know as much as I know, but I still consider him a brother in Christ. Etc, etc. For you see I know more about this than anybody else because I sat in a few classes/sermons. Sadly, though Hoeh was still an Armstrongite based on MY definition, which I wrote MYSELF.
By the way, the main premise of people like Hoeh was, LIVE your life by letting the Father and Son live it in you, as Paul said, I live, yet not I, Messiah liveth within me. They believed in expressing those Two in their lives versus just always talking about God and Christ as too many pseudo christians do, thinking that that talk is all that’s needed.
United Church of God may be ready to concede the 6,000 year point. The Sept-Oct "Beyond Today" tucks this line into an article by Michael Kelley on "God's Great Reset":
"For more than 6,000 years of recorded human history, our own stubbornness and resistance to God's authority has always led mankind to choose to follow Satan...."
Neo is wrong about the "dont't believe me being only for novices". It was repeated over and over, even in the "supposedly mature example hq church assembly."
It was for all always.
However it was also stated that if some things were not understood yet, like hwa did not fully understand sabbaths and feasts for 15 years, one better do it anyway and understanding of the topic would come.............
This is like islamic or orthodox judaism or early christianity, where the "do" is more important than the "believe or understanding".
It is kind of a moot point. Nobody ever followed that little maxim that HWA bandied about. Every Armstrongist regarded HWA as a kind of Pope speaking ex cathedra. Nothing was too heretical to reject.
If you say so! I'm glad I never did in my 23 year stint!
I do remember one Pentecost in 1979 when our director joked at a combined service that "no one knew when we would go to Petra, only HWA's blue book hidden in his, safe knew the date."
Next week he had to explain the joke to 3 congregations.
Nick Once in spokesman club, someone said that HWA writings would become part of the bible on Christ's return. It was obvious by their body language, that all 30 men agreed. So yes, it was universal in the church that Herb was viewed as a Pope. And that includes yourself since you reflect action like, invalidate any legitimate criticisms of the man.
HWAs often expressed "don't believe me, (rather) believe your bible" is part of his cults outer face. The inner face ie, the true church culture, was very different. Expressing it differently, "don't believe me, believe your bible" is bait-and-switch.
Such attempts at criticisms based on “argumentum by ignoranticism.” I talked to someone else who heard that. That was just the culture of “bait and switch.” That slogan was just for “novices.”
Really, folks? That’s all you’ve got. Just more argumentadumbum by hearsaytonic coctailism post assumptipasta after great non sequential mental lobotomyum terminalis.
So, what were they taught and believed and practiced AFTER novice status was over? Don’t you folks understand the scriptures? Didn’t think so. Here’s just one thing you forgot or, more than likely never learned:
Be YE (plural) FOLLOWERS of me, EVEN AS I also am of Christ. I Corinthians 11:1
Oh, Paul wasn’t a Pope either. That HWA was is just the figment of imagination and distorted fancies made up by critics who don’t and can’t do their homework so their fallacious arguments seem to carry weight. They don’t, they are just made up with skulls full of hot air.
HWA, in practice, meant "Don't believe me, believe my interpretation of the Bible!" He saw himself as the arbiter of the meaning of scripture,, which is kind of a popish thing to do.
11.01 AM Try telling any ACOG minister that HWA wasn't the equivalent of a Pope, and you will be throw out of that church. And that's after they verbally beat you up. Your post is a rant divorced from reality.
Try telling any ACOG minister that HWA wasn't the equivalent of a Pope, and you will be throw out of that church. And that's after they verbally beat you up. Your post is a rant divorced from reality.
Reply: Now we change the wording from, a Pope, to the equivalent of a Pope. A totally different statement. Why change the wording? Because humans do that when they think they are losing the high ground.
Today, to call on what a “modern “ ACOG minister believes is filled with problems. And, they would not beat me up, they don’t have any control over me.
My post is full of reality, and it is your response that is divorced from it. But, nice try anyway.
As Armstrong said before he died, in a most powerful sermon, most of the young ministers should never have been ordained as they were not really converted. That being true, what’s to fear from today’s ministry even more off track?
If he said that about the ministers, what does that say about their members?
6.09 PM My ministers mentioned HWAs name more often than Christs. And that's from the pulpit and in personal dealings with members. So they did regard HWA as a Pope/the equivalent of a Pope.
Whenever these animals first existed or came to America, they were not of sufficient numbers or intellect to destroy the planet. The industrial revolution and the medical revolution which prevented the natural thiining of the herd have accomplished that.
Ah me! To believe that Herbert meant that we should trust our understanding of the Bible over what he told us it meant is folly.
Herbert believed you were going to the lake of fire if, as a baptized member, you did not follow his teachings.
So to what effect was his “don’t believe me, believe your Bible” quote? In his mind, if you don’t believe him you are either not called (if a non-member) or headed to the lake of fire if a member.
Well Earl. HWA "told" me through for instance actions that the Legal profession could be handled in good manner, through his praise of certain attorneys, he "told" me that ONLY GOD HEALS, but going to docters can be a good thing...... as he proved after his heart attack. He told all of us through the Worldwide news that getting the best education possible was a lofty goal....... although of course worldly Universities did teach fallacy on certain topics and of course AC was Gods own West Point for True education..... But for building a bridge AC would not be the first choice but cream on the cake.
HWA told me A LOT had not been revealed to him, for instance stuff about pyramids on which many people theorized and especially dates, he didnt know dates for certain events although on Gods authority it would be soon.............. HWA defined a day as a thousand years so short could be 900 years.
I could go on and on and on.
It was very CLEAR, when he was speculating or when he was certain. When you listen to tapes you know he was hardly certain on anything in the manner someog my educated friends are.
Nck "AC was God's own West Point for true education."
I had these West Pointers in my Spokesman club, and they definitely weren't some sort of elite of anything. Other than having some social polish, I found them no better than other church members. That was my experience.
Nck, What hea was not clear on seems moot to me. I can cite pastor general reports from the 80s where he claimed wearing makeup and not giving extra to the HQ building fund can get you thrown into the lake of fire. This would hold up as strong evidence in roman and “anglo saxon” law that there was different freedoms and consequences for the member and the nonmember in not accepting his interpretations and edicts.
It was official teaching that "called" and "uncalled" would have different consequences upon "hearing" truths and not acting upon them.
The make up thing I could NOT find in the bible......... so I obeyed the "Don't believe me, believe the bible...." Of course I felt the group should not be provoked by promting it and I accepted the "bad attitude" parts but BY THE BIBLE I knew the use of make up in itself was not a (cardinal) sin. I also knew ALL the tv presenters MEN did use make up!!!
Building find was ALWAYS "if you can". I agree that some might have interpreted that to excess, but they shouldnt have if they had had their priorities right. Which to me means family and responsibilities first. But hey people might feel differently on priorities if they come from disfunctional families themselves. Like Flurry the Drunk.
I believe the unfortunate events that are happening to one of the former most beautiful women ever to have graced the earth, Linda Evangelista, might perhaps represent a result of sin!
However the make up of the flurry lawyers battling Helge or those nice ladies of the oklahoma tourist board awarding flurry are not sinning by enhancing their best features!
47 comments:
Dennis seems to have forgotten the "pre-Adamic hominids" scenario.
Which also is one dodge around some objections to the overall Genesis scenario, as the Eden evictees could have "known" any number of soulless bi-cameral-minded pre-Adamic animals to begin their own post-Adamic bloodlines.
Yes, the 6,000 Year Plan defies science, history and reason; but when has that ever stopped (or even slowed down) an Armstrongite? Unfortunately, the 6,000 Year Plan is only one of many unsupported notions which Herbie put forward and his followers have continued to cling to despite all evidence to the contrary (e.g. Church Eras, Place of Safety, Church History, Tithing, British Israelism, German Assyrian identity, Herbie as Elijah and/or Zerubbabel, etc.). Let's face it: There are a lot of potential problems out there in the wacky world of Armstrongism!
Dennis……you doubter and troubler of Rabbi Squarepants Bob the prophet.
Bet you voted for ‘Sleepy Joe Biden’ lol.
All that said, just to claim a 6000 year old earth just does not cut it today.
Christians need to get their thinking caps on and be able to present solid arguments backed with empirical evidence that their claims and reasonings are indeed correct and will stand under the spotlight of critical inquiry.
Within the cog movement that thinking has being sadly lacking and has lead to much derision against it. And rightly so in many cases.
Good post.
The Noah flood leeched objects, giving rise to the inaccurate carbon 14 dates given in this article.
Most of the people these guys are preaching to have at best a very superficial understanding of the sciences. So, once someone convinces someone that they're from God, to the extent that they become a member, they'll believe anything the ministers tell them. We think we might assist people to truth and safety with real facts, but reality is facts don't even register.
Not to worry:
Diploma-Mill-Dr.Thiel can reconcile YEC-Armstrongism with Science
The feast of tabernacles is at the going out ("end" - Strong's 3318 - Ex 23:16) of the year. Using contemporary names of months, is creation week of Genesis 1 Tishri 16 - 22....3980 BC? Just askin'.
Did Diploma-mill-Theil attend Diploma-mill-Ambassador-College?
...where the 'Chancellor' was a High-school-Dropout!
Anonymous said...
Dennis seems to have forgotten the "pre-Adamic hominids" scenario.
=================================
Oh my gosh, I forgot all about the pre-Adamic hominid scenario! lol
The humans before "Adam" were just as much a human as any modern today. The "PAHS" is an apologetic for those who need the Adam and Eve tale to be literally true and the actual origins or humanity, which it is not. The Bible is neither the greatest nor most accurate book ever written. That a book declares itself to be true doesn't actually make it so.
Dennis said;
“ The "PAHS" is an apologetic…”
Dennis has sinneD again. He actually came up with PAHS by shortening “ pre-Adamic hominid scenario” into PAHS in order to make his criticisms sound real. However, all he did was create a fake slogan to poke fun at a group of people. But all his effort is just a citegolopa for his personal biases without foorp. Try again sinneD, you can do better.
Regarding Hoeh's Pre-Adamic Hominid Scenario . . .
The people that lived in what Hoeh described as the Pre-adamic period (let us say, prior to 6000 years ago) had the same genetics that we have now. The races of mankind were well established before the appearance of Adam. By this I mean the modern haplogroups have been in existence well prior to any date claimed for Adam. The Jews are haplogroup J and haplogroup J has been around for abot 43,000 years. Hoeh's pre-Adamites are us.
Regarding "The Noah flood leeched (sic - that is an aquatic blood sucking animal) objects, giving rise to the inaccurate carbon 14 dates given in this article" ...
Radio carbon dating is good for back to around 50,000 years - well before the Adamic period under discussion. RC dating can be verified by other dating methods that do not involve any kind of leaching from a putative global flood. There was no global flood to do the global leaching to mess up carbon 14. There is no geology to support a global flood. There was a large localized flood in the Middle East that can be supported with evidence.
Regarding "The Bible is neither the greatest nor most accurate book ever written. That a book declares itself to be true doesn't actually make it so."
The Bible reflects the human scribal touch - just as in our era we may find, for example, many differing translations. "God let his children tell the story." Whether or not it is the greatest piece of literature is a subjective matter in this era. The observation "that a book declares itself to be true doesn't actually make it so" does not make the Bible untrue or, for that matter, any book that makes that self-declaration. That statement is just a political sound bite, gratifying to the writer but carrying no real weight.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
neo therm said: Regarding Hoeh's Pre-Adamic Hominid Scenario . . .
Excuse me, but Hoeh did not create that teaching. It was out there in christian circles long before he wrote or taught about it.
It’s interesting that Bullinger was a very popular christian scholar until modern day christians found out some of his teachings went against their teachings. Now they try to screw him too.
Is it Hoeh you are against, or the teaching? If the teaching, why not equal down putting on those christians who taught the same thing before Hoeh came along? Criticisms I like and enjoy, especially when correct. But personal criticisms based on personal bias and individual unfair attacks is a whole different matter, besides, that kind of criticism isn’t christian, it’s simply antagonistic for self aggrandizement.
Anonymous 12:57
I know that various forms of the Pre-Adamic Man idea have been around for a while. I once encountered it in a systematic theology I found in a university library written in the late 19th Century. There the attempt was to trace Blacks to Pre-Adamic origins - the idea was that Blacks were really animals and not men at all. I do not recall what denomination the theology was connected to. But I have heard this same argument from Armstrongists.
Hoeh believed that archaic men such as Neanderthal and Homo Erectus were Pre-Adamic. This implies that all modern humans are descended from Adam genetically. Genetic studies do not support this. I am against both Hoeh and his teaching. I stand also in opposition to others in the past who taught ideas similar to Hoeh's ideas.
My criticism is not based on personal bias but on science that clearly demonstrates the impossibility of Hoeh's ideas on human origins. And I am not going to sort through the strange ideas that Bullinger had, for instance, because that is not of interest to me or the readers of this blog. I have written elsewhere on this blog about these issues, for instance:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2019/07/adam-genetics-and-armstrongism.html
If you want to defend Hoeh, you should defend him with logical argumentation rather than trying to besmirch his critics. That is not good form. Someone once wrote "that kind of criticism isn’t christian, it’s simply antagonistic for self aggrandizement."
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Hoeh was no more a theologian than Bob Thiel is.
neo wrote: If you want to defend Hoeh, you should defend him with logical argumentation rather than trying to besmirch his critics. That is not good form. Someone once wrote "that kind of criticism isn’t christian, it’s simply antagonistic for self aggrandizement."
1. When you step in and use real argumentation then someone should step in and rebut that with the same. But to generalize against a specific person because he was connected with a group you constantly attack with more generalities then it is perfectly within biblical teaching to rebuke it.
2. “So formal logic detached from the yes-or-no game is useless and even dangerous. It’s an unnatural way of thinking, a contrived technique of going from unwarranted assumptions to foregone conclusions.” Rudolph Flesch, Ph.D.
3. “The present system of logic rather assists in confirming and rendering inveterate the errors found on vulgar notions than in searching after truth, and is therefore more hurtful than useful.” Francis Bacon
4. “I appeal to common observation, which has always found these artificial methods of reasoning more adapted to catch and entangle the mind, than to instruct and inform the understanding.” John Locke
So, Hoeh went to AC. Was a member of the RCG/WCG. Was taught by Armstrong. Then wrote articles, etc. for college and church publications. Where did his research come from? Mostly christian sources, and secular history, outside ac and wcg. What he found as sources he quoted in his papers. But, his evil was that he was involved in the modern critic created curse word, Armstrongism. So, by quoting christian resources to prove his point, he is bad, not the christians who gave him their proof. Same for secular historian sources. And, worst of all, he actually quoted the bible at times. Now he’s really an Armstrongite.
So, what is Armstrongism? For the critics it is their “polite” curse word for belittling other people and their beliefs.
For those who actually read and studied the bible, and publications, Armstrongism is: Don’t you dare believe me, a man, until you have proved to yourself what the bible says. If you don’t that is your problem. Remember, study as a workman to prove all things, then hold on to what is good.
So, what if Hoeh messed up with the neanderthal etc.? What would it change? Would you write a great glorification of him, and pardon him for using christian resources which led him to his conclusions? I doubt it.
“When men and women agree, it is only in their conclusions; their reasons. are always different.” — George Santayana
When critics and criticized disagree, it is only in their conclusions; their reasons are always the same.
NeoTherm said…”I know that various forms of the Pre-Adamic Man idea have been around for a while. I once encountered it in a systematic theology I found in a university library written in the late 19th Century. There the attempt was to trace Blacks to Pre-Adamic origins - the idea was that Blacks were really animals and not men at all.”
I remember as a teen assembling a range of sources on various topics like the origins of man from various Xian groups that would be pro or anti this or that theory or doctrine.
Anyway I remember coming across the pre-Adamite theory and it’s variations. IIRC they were something like what Armstrongism taught as in a world before Genesis 1 in which pre-Adam humanoids existed and/or dinosaurs existed. Then there were others that taught the Satanic seed doctrine in which Satan had sex with Eve and she gave birth to blacks and/or Jews. Then there was another view that Adam and Eve were created by God and lived in Eden while other races like black, yellow etc. lived outside Eden and were animals not made in God’s image. Sometimes there was a mixture of these various theories. I ended up agreeing and concluding with the more conservative view that dinosaurs existed with man in the antediluvian era and that all mankind came from Adam and Eve and later Noah and his sons. It was this that unsettled me when I started learning about HWA /WCG teachings since I thought if WCG is God’s true Church then how can they teach a falsehood like the pre-Adamite theory. Of course as I grew in understanding I’ve since learned that wasn’t the only falsehood taught as true.
Anonymous 7:16
I am not going to respond to everything you wrote. I don't think it would be constructive. You give evidence of being impaired by indoctrination.
You wrote, "But, his evil was that he was involved in the modern critic created curse word, Armstrongism."
That is facetious. Hoeh's made mistakes due to his attempt to support certain pseudo-scientific ideas. I have nothing against Hoeh. In later life he abandoned Armstrongism and became a Christian. He also renounced his writings. I consider him to have been a brother in Christ.
The fact that other Christians may have made similar mistakes does not mitigate Hoeh's error. The question is whether those who held errors eventually recognized those errors and grew beyond them. Hoeh did this. But the many little apocalyptic Millerite denominations did not and still follow the ideas that Hoeh renounced.
2. You wrote, "Armstrongism is: Don’t you dare believe me, a man, until you have proved to yourself what the bible says."
That is not even remotely what Armstrongism is. That is nothing more than a misleading sound bite. In fact, HWA did not support that idea unconditionally. I heard him state that this principle was for people who were just beginning to develop an interest in Armstrongism. He stated that church members were beyond the inquiry stage and should simply believe whatever he said without question.
I could recommend that you read one of my posts on what Armstrongism is but I do not believe that would be beneficial. My guess is that you are new to Armstrongism and do not know much about it. Before you slide further, you need to continue to visit this blog.
I will not be responding to any more of your comments.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
neo said:
You give evidence of being impaired by indoctrination.
reply: Ah, so you’ve never looked in the mirror.
neo:
I will not be responding to any more of your comments.
reply: Of course you won’t. It is obvious you got caught, and tried your best to obviate your bias. And, anyone with half a mind can see the fallacy of your argument. For ex. you could have said, I’m going to criticize Hoeh for the errors he made, based on other christian statements that didn’t know as much as I know, but I still consider him a brother in Christ. Etc, etc. For you see I know more about this than anybody else because I sat in a few classes/sermons. Sadly, though Hoeh was still an Armstrongite based on MY definition, which I wrote MYSELF.
By the way, the main premise of people like Hoeh was, LIVE your life by letting the Father and Son live it in you, as Paul said, I live, yet not I, Messiah liveth within me. They believed in expressing those Two in their lives versus just always talking about God and Christ as too many pseudo christians do, thinking that that talk is all that’s needed.
Enjoyed our limited parler…
United Church of God may be ready to concede the 6,000 year point. The Sept-Oct "Beyond Today" tucks this line into an article by Michael Kelley on "God's Great Reset":
"For more than 6,000 years of recorded human history, our own stubbornness and resistance to God's authority has always led mankind to choose to follow Satan...."
Neo is wrong about the "dont't believe me being only for novices". It was repeated over and over, even in the "supposedly mature example hq church assembly."
It was for all always.
However it was also stated that if some things were not understood yet, like hwa did not fully understand sabbaths and feasts for 15 years, one better do it anyway and understanding of the topic would come.............
This is like islamic or orthodox judaism or early christianity, where the "do" is more important than the "believe or understanding".
Nck
NCK 8:06
Sorry NCK, I heard the HWA say that himself. I remember it clearly. I expect that many others heard it as well.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NCK:
It is kind of a moot point. Nobody ever followed that little maxim that HWA bandied about. Every Armstrongist regarded HWA as a kind of Pope speaking ex cathedra. Nothing was too heretical to reject.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Every Armstrongist regarded HWA as a kind of Pope.
Oh no they did NOT. You assume much but are quite small minded with the assumptions.
NEO
I really don't care what anyone in WCG BELIEVED!
I only went with what was stated!
Must be my Roman Law education as contrary to the Anglo Saxon "interpretative" legal system!
Nck
NCK:
I just corresponded with another ex-WCG member who also remembers that HWA made this statement.
******* Click on this icon for my Disclaimer
If you say so! I'm glad I never did in my 23 year stint!
I do remember one Pentecost in 1979 when our director joked at a combined service that "no one knew when we would go to Petra, only HWA's blue book hidden in his, safe knew the date."
Next week he had to explain the joke to 3 congregations.
Nck
Nick
Once in spokesman club, someone said that HWA writings would become part of the bible on Christ's return. It was obvious by their body language, that all 30 men agreed. So yes, it was universal in the church that Herb was viewed as a Pope.
And that includes yourself since you reflect action like, invalidate any legitimate criticisms of the man.
HWAs often expressed "don't believe me, (rather) believe your bible" is part of his cults outer face. The inner face ie, the true church culture, was very different.
Expressing it differently, "don't believe me, believe your bible" is bait-and-switch.
I guess I was always in the "Outer Court." I just listened to data... what was said and printed, I don't care about opinions of flawed humans!
Nck
Nck
Such attempts at criticisms based on “argumentum by ignoranticism.”
I talked to someone else who heard that.
That was just the culture of “bait and switch.”
That slogan was just for “novices.”
Really, folks? That’s all you’ve got. Just more argumentadumbum by hearsaytonic coctailism post assumptipasta after great non sequential mental lobotomyum terminalis.
So, what were they taught and believed and practiced AFTER novice status was over? Don’t you folks understand the scriptures? Didn’t think so. Here’s just one thing you forgot or, more than likely never learned:
Be YE (plural) FOLLOWERS of me, EVEN AS I also am of Christ. I Corinthians 11:1
Oh, Paul wasn’t a Pope either. That HWA was is just the figment of imagination and distorted fancies made up by critics who don’t and can’t do their homework so their fallacious arguments seem to carry weight. They don’t, they are just made up with skulls full of hot air.
Uhhm, good point,.... I guess.
Nck
HWA, in practice, meant "Don't believe me, believe my interpretation of the Bible!" He saw himself as the arbiter of the meaning of scripture,, which is kind of a popish thing to do.
11.01 AM
Try telling any ACOG minister that HWA wasn't the equivalent of a Pope, and you will be throw out of that church. And that's after they verbally beat you up.
Your post is a rant divorced from reality.
4:42 said:
Try telling any ACOG minister that HWA wasn't the equivalent of a Pope, and you will be throw out of that church. And that's after they verbally beat you up.
Your post is a rant divorced from reality.
Reply: Now we change the wording from, a Pope, to the equivalent of a Pope. A totally different statement. Why change the wording? Because humans do that when they think they are losing the high ground.
Today, to call on what a “modern “ ACOG minister believes is filled with problems. And, they would not beat me up, they don’t have any control over me.
My post is full of reality, and it is your response that is divorced from it. But, nice try anyway.
As Armstrong said before he died, in a most powerful sermon, most of the young ministers should never have been ordained as they were not really converted. That being true, what’s to fear from today’s ministry even more off track?
If he said that about the ministers, what does that say about their members?
6.09 PM
My ministers mentioned HWAs name more often than Christs. And that's from the pulpit and in personal dealings with members. So they did regard HWA as a Pope/the equivalent of a Pope.
For those intent on proving Dennis wrong and point out the faults of sciences.
People have thought humans started to inhabit the Americas 13000-16000 years ago. Recent evidence is showing it might have started 23000 years ago.
Eat that! :-) :-)
Nck
Whenever these animals first existed or came to America, they were not of sufficient numbers or intellect to destroy the planet. The industrial revolution and the medical revolution which prevented the natural thiining of the herd have accomplished that.
Ah me! To believe that Herbert meant that we should trust our understanding of the Bible over what he told us it meant is folly.
Herbert believed you were going to the lake of fire if, as a baptized member, you did not follow his teachings.
So to what effect was his “don’t believe me, believe your Bible” quote? In his mind, if you don’t believe him you are either not called (if a non-member) or headed to the lake of fire if a member.
Well Earl. HWA "told" me through for instance actions that the Legal profession could be handled in good manner, through his praise of certain attorneys, he "told" me that ONLY GOD HEALS, but going to docters can be a good thing...... as he proved after his heart attack. He told all of us through the Worldwide news that getting the best education possible was a lofty goal....... although of course worldly Universities did teach fallacy on certain topics and of course AC was Gods own West Point for True education..... But for building a bridge AC would not be the first choice but cream on the cake.
HWA told me A LOT had not been revealed to him, for instance stuff about pyramids on which many people theorized and especially dates, he didnt know dates for certain events although on Gods authority it would be soon.............. HWA defined a day as a thousand years so short could be 900 years.
I could go on and on and on.
It was very CLEAR, when he was speculating or when he was certain. When you listen to tapes you know he was hardly certain on anything in the manner someog my educated friends are.
Nck
Nck
Nck
"AC was God's own West Point for true education."
I had these West Pointers in my Spokesman club, and they definitely weren't some sort of elite of anything. Other than having some social polish, I found them no better than other church members. That was my experience.
12:43
I was just contrasting "official teaching" with my experience, I guess you gathered I attended an ancient worldly University.
What's your point anyway. West Pointer elitist have killed a million people the past decade in the name of democracy.
I'm just contrasting the official and the interpretation.
Nck
9:38 and 3:45 exactly!
Different people can use whichever terms they want. Popish is accurate to me as hwa’s dictates weren’t as regulated as the Pope’s.
ibid.
Nck,
What hea was not clear on seems moot to me. I can cite pastor general reports from the 80s where he claimed wearing makeup and not giving extra to the HQ building fund can get you thrown into the lake of fire. This would hold up as strong evidence in roman and “anglo saxon” law that there was different freedoms and consequences for the member and the nonmember in not accepting his interpretations and edicts.
Earl.
It was official teaching that "called" and "uncalled" would have different consequences upon "hearing" truths and not acting upon them.
The make up thing I could NOT find in the bible......... so I obeyed the "Don't believe me, believe the bible...." Of course I felt the group should not be provoked by promting it and I accepted the "bad attitude" parts but BY THE BIBLE I knew the use of make up in itself was not a (cardinal) sin. I also knew ALL the tv presenters MEN did use make up!!!
Building find was ALWAYS "if you can". I agree that some might have interpreted that to excess, but they shouldnt have if they had had their priorities right. Which to me means family and responsibilities first. But hey people might feel differently on priorities if they come from disfunctional families themselves. Like Flurry the Drunk.
Nck
Hi Earl.
To be very specific!
I believe the unfortunate events that are happening to one of the former most beautiful women ever to have graced the earth, Linda Evangelista, might perhaps represent a result of sin!
However the make up of the flurry lawyers battling Helge or those nice ladies of the oklahoma tourist board awarding flurry are not sinning by enhancing their best features!
Nck
Post a Comment