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
Of course there's truth to that statement. If people don't agree with some bible teaching, they turn it into a metaphor. It's called making the bible in your own image. The posters on Banned do it all the time.
Using symbols to construct meaning within any language, in order to communicate, would invoke abstract meaning in words. Literalism in words invoke absolute word meaning. So then when would symbols and metaphors convey a literal text? Unless one uses Mathematics, Chemistry, or the oral tradition.
On the other hand, if the Bible uses a metaphor, which it often does, and one believes it is literal, where does that lead? You can find lists of metaphors from both the OT and NT on the web. Jesus said "I am the bread of life." Does that really make him a loaf? It is generally the case that the application of reason and the review of context can lead to identifying metaphor. It is not some great mystery.
The really important question is what if a denominaton erroneously believes a metaphor to be literal. And they are among a tiny minority of people who have made this mistake. And many people point out the mistake to them. Do they have the spiritual depth to recant? That is where all the rubber meets the road.
I do not agree with Crossan entirely. I believe that the people who carefully preserved the fragment called Genesis I and contributed it to the editing and integration process that resulted in what we call the OT actually believed that God had a body. I do not think it was metaphorical to them. It is a metaphor to us because we stand outside the Bronze Age Middle Eastern context a view it with different resources. From a Jewish website:
"In his commentary on Tractate Sanhedrin in the Mishna, the Rambam (12th century) delineated thirteen principles that, at the time, he held to be crucial to Judaism. His third principle states that God does not possess a physical form. People tend to cite that principle today in asserting God's incorporeality."
Both Jews and Christians have understood this for centuries. The metaphorical nature of the scriptures that propound the idea that God has a body was gradually understood. So narrative realism morphed into metaphor as spiritual understanding gained depth.
Could it be that the writers of the Bible employed both literalism and metaphors, and that wisdom is required to distinguish between the two? Could that account for many of the differences amongst the various religions within Christianity, while also providing the opportunity for some to make the claim of "one true"? Is it possible for liberalism, conservatism, and a moderate approach to all coexist? To what extent does grace factor into this equation?
Could they both be equally representative? The only difference is, as time goes on, Science will change but "The Bible" will remain the same. You see, there is a certain amount of truth in fiction, and a certain amount of fiction that grows in the truth of non-fiction as time goes on. And if we fail to understand that, then what happens is we will get stupid and behave stupidly as if we are doing very, very important things. Like for an example, claiming to have the authority to speak for the "Grand Architect of The Universe."
Yes. The Bible is frozen in time. Some people, in spite of the new understandings that science provides, seem to want to "get back" (apologies to the Beatles) to where they believe we once belonged. There is no shortage of self-important gurus willing to lead the charge, presumptuously speaking for the Grand Architect. Just wish my parents had never been hornswaggled by one of them.
How do you determine when a story is to be taken literally? It has been said that when the common sense meaning makes sense, don't look for any other sense or you will end up with nonsense. An example is when Mary Baker Eddy said that when Jesus and his disciples were in the "uppeer room" it meant that they were in a "higher state of consciousness". The problem is that when you start to allegorize everything, then each person become the ultimate authority on its meaning. Interpreting the Bible can become a free for all of crazy thoughts. I just read about Balaam and his talking donkey. Bizarre? Yes, if you limit yourself to what can occur in the natural world. But, if you accept a God, then isn't the bizarre possible? If the miracles really didn't happen because they are beyond nature, then can we accept the resurrection of Jesus? This would mean that Christianity is a hoax and we have no hope of anything beyond the grave. Is a Christian who can't accept miracles still thinking more like an atheist or have a diminished view of who he is and what he can do.
One more comment on Balaam and his Talking Donkey (sounds like a circus act). Is it to be taken literally? I would think so, just as the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man. The story is written as history. There are specific names of people, places and events. It is was written, "there once was a man who led a kingdom who was scared of a strange people coming way . . . he called for a prophet to curse these people and the donkey spoke," etc. Then, this would not be taken literally. That's my understanding. But what do I know, I too graduated from AC. The teaching there was more indoctrination than education. My diploma was worthless, but I got something more valuable from my 4 years in the church. It was at AC that I met my beloved wife of nearly 50 years. For that alone, I am grateful for the experience. Grateful that I was there and grateful that it was a short tour of duty.
HWA knew Biblical metaphor and used it in his hermeneutics. He developed a meaning for each of the Holy Days that rendered their OT versions as symbolic or metaphor. Leaven, for instance, is a metaphor for sin. For the Jews, the holy days are all about the exodus and nothing more. For Christians, Christ is the holy days. But for HWA, the OT holy days were resuscitated through the use of metaphor. And HWA's holy days are a departure from Biblical literalism. He recognized that the exodus was about more than just a literal migration of ancient Semites. He saw it, as do others, as leaving sin behind.
Armstrongism has a rich tradition of using Biblical metaphor. It is a part of their holy day praxis. It is odd to seem HWA's followers recoil from what HWA himself exemplified.
HWA did indeed harness metaphor, NEO. However, he obviously saw himself (God's Apostle) as being the arbiter of metaphor vs literal. His followers then and now simply take his word on these topics. That is actually part of the "guru" process. A guru's followers at some point decide that their guru knows more than they do. It's no accident that we call it "Armstrongism". The ACOG members then and now call following HWA's teachings "obeying God", or "following the instructions in the Bible". That is where the brain washing element comes into play. They invoke what is known in math as the substitution axiom. Reality is, most of the ACOG members never did any in depth study of the teachings of other historic leaders in the Christian movement. That is not a problem necessarily restricted to those attracted to Armstrongism, either. Most people convert to a new religion in their lives not because they have thoroughly investigated all possible options, but rather because a new teacher resonates with them on an emotional level, possibly at a time of personal crisis. Before they realize it, they have surrendered their thinking processes to someone like an HWA.
The only way any of us could dissuade an Armstrongite would be to convince him or her that we operate on a superior or parallel level to HWA. Not only would that be nearly impossible, considering that their minds are already set, but also most of us have no desire to become an HWA-like guru. So we continue to try to reach ACOG members with facts and logic, hoping for the best.
9.06 AM I don't quite agree with you. The bible instructs to "prove all things." This is an ongoing life process. In the meanwhile, situations arise and decisions have to be made. This forces people to lean on their guru/s on topics they are not yet intimate with. I see no way around this. I have always faced this when reading books on new topics. I've always felt forced to act on the premise that the book is correct, since the alternative of near ignorance is worse. So gurus have their place in a person's youth or some new endeavor. What is damning though is people abdicating the responsibility of "proving all things" and instead blindly deferring to some guru, forever. This ditching of their minds is self murder, resulting in wolves like Dave Pack eating them alive.
While not completely on topic, a potentially useful view from a recent Smithsonian magazine that reviews issues of interpretative archeology might contribute to this discussion. In an article titled "An Archaeological Dig Reignites the Debate Over the Old Testament’s Historical Accuracy -- Beneath a desert in Israel, a scholar and his team are unearthing astonishing new evidence of an advanced society in the time of the biblical Solomon" (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-reignites-debate-old-testament-historical-accuracy-180979011/), the text ends with some remarkable thoughts and a most remarkable conclusion:
"What Ben-Yosef has produced isn’t an argument for or against the historical accuracy of the Bible but a critique of his own profession. Archaeology, he argues, has overstated its authority. Entire kingdoms could exist under our noses, and archaeologists would never find a trace. Timna is an anomaly that throws into relief the limits of what we can know. The treasure of the ancient mines, it turns out, is humility."
NEO wrote if the Bible uses a metaphor, ... and one believes it is literal, where does that lead?
Like mustard seed mountain moving faith (Matt 17:20). Some time ago, there were some articles on Banned that included drawings of mountains being ripped from the Earth. Are there any accounts of the faithful doing this? But, if you look into other literature contemporary to that writing, you will find "moving mountains" meant successfully arguing from scripture.
Another is the "camel through the eye of a needle" and that expression led Jerome to concoct a story about one of the gates of Jerusalem. Again, it was figurative; in this instance, it meant something difficult to do - and in some versions, it wasn't a camel, but an elephant.
Philo of Alexandria, and later some early church fathers such as Origen, too literal verses and interpreted them as allegories - such as, forbidding the eating of swine was taken to mean, don't act like a pig.
Many a claim has been made by thinking the Apostles being granted the power to "bind & loose" gives pastors unlimited powers. Remember the passage (Mat 16 & 18) also includes "Seat of Moses" - a judgement position. That is, it lets them judge arguments based on scripture. This does not mean they "legitimately" changed Sabbath to Sunday, revoke 8th day circumcision, and so on.
The cross is symbolic. The horizontal bar represents the earth. The vertical bar represents the heavenly coming down to earth. The cross represents the intersection of the two. It is symbolic and long before the time of Jesus. The four limbs represent the four elements: air, earth, fire, and water. The pope wears a Jew style circular hat that really represents the sun/halo. The OT has piles of symbolic pagan myths turned into literal stories.
17 comments:
Of course there's truth to that statement. If people don't agree with some bible teaching, they turn it into a metaphor. It's called making the bible in your own image. The posters on Banned do it all the time.
Using symbols to construct meaning within any language, in order to communicate, would invoke abstract meaning in words. Literalism in words invoke absolute word meaning. So then when would symbols and metaphors convey a literal text? Unless one uses Mathematics, Chemistry, or the oral tradition.
Anonymous 2:35
On the other hand, if the Bible uses a metaphor, which it often does, and one believes it is literal, where does that lead? You can find lists of metaphors from both the OT and NT on the web. Jesus said "I am the bread of life." Does that really make him a loaf? It is generally the case that the application of reason and the review of context can lead to identifying metaphor. It is not some great mystery.
The really important question is what if a denominaton erroneously believes a metaphor to be literal. And they are among a tiny minority of people who have made this mistake. And many people point out the mistake to them. Do they have the spiritual depth to recant? That is where all the rubber meets the road.
********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I do not agree with Crossan entirely. I believe that the people who carefully preserved the fragment called Genesis I and contributed it to the editing and integration process that resulted in what we call the OT actually believed that God had a body. I do not think it was metaphorical to them. It is a metaphor to us because we stand outside the Bronze Age Middle Eastern context a view it with different resources. From a Jewish website:
"In his commentary on Tractate Sanhedrin in the Mishna, the Rambam (12th century) delineated thirteen principles that, at the time, he held to be crucial to Judaism. His third principle states that God does not possess a physical form. People tend to cite that principle today in asserting God's incorporeality."
Both Jews and Christians have understood this for centuries. The metaphorical nature of the scriptures that propound the idea that God has a body was gradually understood. So narrative realism morphed into metaphor as spiritual understanding gained depth.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Could it be that the writers of the Bible employed both literalism and metaphors, and that wisdom is required to distinguish between the two? Could that account for many of the differences amongst the various religions within Christianity, while also providing the opportunity for some to make the claim of "one true"? Is it possible for liberalism, conservatism, and a moderate approach to all coexist? To what extent does grace factor into this equation?
Could they both be equally representative? The only difference is, as time goes on, Science will change but "The Bible" will remain the same. You see, there is a certain amount of truth in fiction, and a certain amount of fiction that grows in the truth of non-fiction as time goes on. And if we fail to understand that, then what happens is we will get stupid and behave stupidly as if we are doing very, very important things. Like for an example, claiming to have the authority to speak for the "Grand Architect of The Universe."
DBP
Yes. The Bible is frozen in time. Some people, in spite of the new understandings that science provides, seem to want to "get back" (apologies to the Beatles) to where they believe we once belonged. There is no shortage of self-important gurus willing to lead the charge, presumptuously speaking for the Grand Architect. Just wish my parents had never been hornswaggled by one of them.
How do you determine when a story is to be taken literally? It has been said that when the common sense meaning makes sense, don't look for any other sense or you will end up with nonsense. An example is when Mary Baker Eddy said that when Jesus and his disciples were in the "uppeer room" it meant that they were in a "higher state of consciousness". The problem is that when you start to allegorize everything, then each person become the ultimate authority on its meaning. Interpreting the Bible can become a free for all of crazy thoughts. I just read about Balaam and his talking donkey. Bizarre? Yes, if you limit yourself to what can occur in the natural world. But, if you accept a God, then isn't the bizarre possible? If the miracles really didn't happen because they are beyond nature, then can we accept the resurrection of Jesus? This would mean that Christianity is a hoax and we have no hope of anything beyond the grave. Is a Christian who can't accept miracles still thinking more like an atheist or have a diminished view of who he is and what he can do.
One more comment on Balaam and his Talking Donkey (sounds like a circus act). Is it to be taken literally? I would think so, just as the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man. The story is written as history. There are specific names of people, places and events. It is was written, "there once was a man who led a kingdom who was scared of a strange people coming way . . . he called for a prophet to curse these people and the donkey spoke," etc. Then, this would not be taken literally.
That's my understanding. But what do I know, I too graduated from AC. The teaching there was more indoctrination than education. My diploma was worthless, but I got something more valuable from my 4 years in the church. It was at AC that I met my beloved wife of nearly 50 years. For that alone, I am grateful for the experience. Grateful that I was there and grateful that it was a short tour of duty.
HWA knew Biblical metaphor and used it in his hermeneutics. He developed a meaning for each of the Holy Days that rendered their OT versions as symbolic or metaphor. Leaven, for instance, is a metaphor for sin. For the Jews, the holy days are all about the exodus and nothing more. For Christians, Christ is the holy days. But for HWA, the OT holy days were resuscitated through the use of metaphor. And HWA's holy days are a departure from Biblical literalism. He recognized that the exodus was about more than just a literal migration of ancient Semites. He saw it, as do others, as leaving sin behind.
Armstrongism has a rich tradition of using Biblical metaphor. It is a part of their holy day praxis. It is odd to seem HWA's followers recoil from what HWA himself exemplified.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
HWA did indeed harness metaphor, NEO. However, he obviously saw himself (God's Apostle) as being the arbiter of metaphor vs literal. His followers then and now simply take his word on these topics. That is actually part of the "guru" process. A guru's followers at some point decide that their guru knows more than they do. It's no accident that we call it "Armstrongism". The ACOG members then and now call following HWA's teachings "obeying God", or "following the instructions in the Bible". That is where the brain washing element comes into play. They invoke what is known in math as the substitution axiom. Reality is, most of the ACOG members never did any in depth study of the teachings of other historic leaders in the Christian movement. That is not a problem necessarily restricted to those attracted to Armstrongism, either. Most people convert to a new religion in their lives not because they have thoroughly investigated all possible options, but rather because a new teacher resonates with them on an emotional level, possibly at a time of personal crisis. Before they realize it, they have surrendered their thinking processes to someone like an HWA.
The only way any of us could dissuade an Armstrongite would be to convince him or her that we operate on a superior or parallel level to HWA. Not only would that be nearly impossible, considering that their minds are already set, but also most of us have no desire to become an HWA-like guru. So we continue to try to reach ACOG members with facts and logic, hoping for the best.
9.06 AM
I don't quite agree with you. The bible instructs to "prove all things." This is an ongoing life process. In the meanwhile, situations arise and decisions have to be made. This forces people to lean on their guru/s on topics they are not yet intimate with. I see no way around this. I have always faced this when reading books on new topics. I've always felt forced to act on the premise that the book is correct, since the alternative of near ignorance is worse. So gurus have their place in a person's youth or some new endeavor. What is damning though is people abdicating the responsibility of "proving all things" and instead blindly deferring to some guru, forever.
This ditching of their minds is self murder, resulting in wolves like Dave Pack eating them alive.
While not completely on topic, a potentially useful view from a recent Smithsonian magazine that reviews issues of interpretative archeology might contribute to this discussion. In an article titled "An Archaeological Dig Reignites the Debate Over the Old Testament’s Historical Accuracy -- Beneath a desert in Israel, a scholar and his team are unearthing astonishing new evidence of an advanced society in the time of the biblical Solomon" (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-reignites-debate-old-testament-historical-accuracy-180979011/), the text ends with some remarkable thoughts and a most remarkable conclusion:
"What Ben-Yosef has produced isn’t an argument for or against the historical accuracy of the Bible but a critique of his own profession. Archaeology, he argues, has overstated its authority. Entire kingdoms could exist under our noses, and archaeologists would never find a trace. Timna is an anomaly that throws into relief the limits of what we can know. The treasure of the ancient mines, it turns out, is humility."
NEO wrote if the Bible uses a metaphor, ... and one believes it is literal, where does that lead?
Like mustard seed mountain moving faith (Matt 17:20). Some time ago, there were some articles on Banned that included drawings of mountains being ripped from the Earth. Are there any accounts of the faithful doing this?
But, if you look into other literature contemporary to that writing, you will find "moving mountains" meant successfully arguing from scripture.
Another is the "camel through the eye of a needle" and that expression led Jerome to concoct a story about one of the gates of Jerusalem. Again, it was figurative; in this instance, it meant something difficult to do - and in some versions, it wasn't a camel, but an elephant.
Philo of Alexandria, and later some early church fathers such as Origen, too literal verses and interpreted them as allegories - such as, forbidding the eating of swine was taken to mean, don't act like a pig.
And so on...
More on (& moron) literalism
Many a claim has been made by thinking the Apostles being granted the power to "bind & loose" gives pastors unlimited powers. Remember the passage (Mat 16 & 18) also includes "Seat of Moses" - a judgement position. That is, it lets them judge arguments based on scripture. This does not mean they "legitimately" changed Sabbath to Sunday, revoke 8th day circumcision, and so on.
The cross is symbolic. The horizontal bar represents the earth. The vertical bar represents the heavenly coming down to earth. The cross represents the intersection of the two. It is symbolic and long before the time of Jesus. The four limbs represent the four elements: air, earth, fire, and water. The pope wears a Jew style circular hat that really represents the sun/halo. The OT has piles of symbolic pagan myths turned into literal stories.
In the PCG "bind and loose" means Gerald Flurry can change anything. He just needs a clever excuse.
Post a Comment