Anonymous said...
"This is what you get when you surround yourself with items of pagans. All those Indian artifacts carry the demons of the pagan gods they worshipped. That is why God had the Israelites destroy the idols of those around them. Bad mojo all the way."
And the all time classic Acheulean Hand Axe at 1.6 million to 200,000 years
Demon in the Mud along the WIllamette
Demons in a Glass Jug
Yesterday's Demonic Find
My first hint to dig it up
33 comments:
I like that demon artwork.
As do I. There being no actual Satan nor demons, in my view, it's great art and a profound representation of the human need to personify evil and blame something for it.
..but the ignorance of saying that one opens themselves up to demons via artifacts of other cultures was more than I could take :) One can open themselves up to all sorts of foolishness and horrific ideas via Bible study if not careful or sane
Dennis
Some of that is mound builder work. Mississippian period. What is the seventh photo from the top? I think it might be a grind stone. On the other hand, it might be an animal effigy.
Gary,
How could you allow such a demonic post? It is one thing to allow a different point of view academically and historically about the ACOG‘s‘s. It’s another to make such a mockery of God’s word. Please, for all that is godly, remove such a demonic post as this.
Denis @ 7:53:00 PM PST
‘One can open themselves up to all sorts of foolishness and horrific ideas via Bible study….’
And don’t we know it.
As one who has family members who are JWs I think we got off lightly.
Be careful Anonymous.
Dennis knows who you are.
Those are very cool artifacts. If I had any of those artifacts that carry the demons and pagan gods then they would be on a shelf in my living room and im sure my sleeping would never be disrupted
That reaction was totally predictable. It is part of their programming. Surely you knew that, and knew that someone would recite their programming back at you. I'm into Native American stuff, and have a lot of artwork around my house. Certain types of Christians would find that objectionable. They'd probably consider my large dream catcher to be a portal, but I've had it for over 3 decades, and there have been no paranormal occurrences or events in the house.
My own views are that Satan is generally recognized as being symbolic of evil. Because of that, I hate depictions of Satan, or Satanic artwork. There's a lot of Gothic art that is not beautiful. It is depressing to look at. My own tastes gravitate towards the beautiful, the uplifting, the inspiring. It has to do with feeding and nourishing the good part of my soul.
An idol is anything put before God.
8.18 PM
I agree. This blogs' title is Banned by HWA. Most of Dennis's posts are a repudiation of belief in God and the bible.
Morally, he should post elsewhere or start his own blog. But again, the rules are for the little people and don't apply to the big people (former)ministers.
NeoTherm said...
Dennis
Some of that is mound builder work. Mississippian period. What is the seventh photo from the top? I think it might be a grind stone. On the other hand, it might be an animal effigy.
========================
Mississippian artifacts are very common to the SE US where I lived. The lone kneeling effigy is Mississippian, and I got that decades ago from an old man who collected. It is a very serene piece to and probably occupied a position atop a Mound. The "grindstone", if I have the right picture I actually was being used as a door stop at a clinic I worked at and when I noticed that, swapped it out for a rock. lol. The Turtle Pipe is Mississippian with long flowing hair. Pretty nice!
The last picture of the five white flint knives I just added and are Poverty Point items. Poverty Point is was occupied between 1700 and 1100 BCE. If they could talk. If any of it could talk.
I have collected for 40 years starting when I was in Kentucky which is artifact heaven. I really enjoy the concept of being the next human to pick something up that another lost a few thousand years ago. Who were you? What was your life like? What was your name? Even if a broken tool or arrowhead, it has a story. This week I found the upper serrated end of a Cascade point, along the Willamette like the one found in the hip of Kennewick Man. A nice moment.
My best personal finds have been here along the Willamette and are the banded net sinkers at the top and the stone sea lion which was probably a hunting charm that was attached to a canoe like our old hood ornaments. The sea lion here was the equivalent of the buffalo to the Plains Indians.
It's quiet time for me walking a field, stream or river imagining what it was and times long past on the same spot. Those who get it can't not understand. Those who don't never will.
PS, Third pic down (of artifacts) is a very nice pestle in situ as it was when I looked down last Fall. Rains had exposed it just lying there waiting to be found. It was a nice moment.
A poem that sits with my collection
As man today
I greet you, Ancient Brother Man
And point with gratitude
To these artifacts you made in eons past.
The signature of man’s slow rise
Is on each tool, each point, each axe
And we can sense the human impact still.
Who smoked this pipe? Who played this flute?
Who used this hoe? Who threw this spear?
And was it made for enemy – or deer?
As Man today
I kneel upon an mountain circled flat
To feel the ancient ashes yield, and see
A kinship gift which you have left for me.
I grasp within my hand a perfect tool
So long ago chipped carefully from stone,
And now but for the timing of our fates
It might have been my own.
I touch with care its edges keen and fine,
Where once you placed your thumb
There now is mine.
-NORA NULL BUNNEY
Dennis
You should change that first picture to something a little less offensive. There are plenty of things to use to portray satan than that. Even I am creeped out with it and It and I'm an agnostic!
But of course it is the detestable Sabbath keeping COG's who are totally obsessed with Satan. They never mention Jesus, what he said, how he taught, how he lived. Beatitudes what are they?
This blog always teaches Jesus, all the way.... oh wait... maybe the is something about this blog you haven't told the watching world ...
Anonymous said...
Dennis
You should change that first picture to something a little less offensive. There are plenty of things to use to portray Satan than that. Even I am creeped out with it and I'm an agnostic!
=================
No charge! :)
Dennis, now that you've changed the first picture, how long will it be before someone claims to be traumatized because it reminds them of Joseph Tkach Jr.?
I suspect that the person who posted the comment about demons infesting cultural artifacts was just joking, by playing the uber-Armstronite.
I don't believe that official, or mainstream Armstrongism condemns the possession of these types of ancient articles.
However, if my assumption about the joke is correct, it is further proof, where no more is needed, that an Armstrongite minister cannot take a joke.
Culture is interesting; I remember seeing traditional Thai dancing in the AC Auditorium in the 1980s.
That dancing portrayed the evil acts of several demons, including a king demon, impacting the lives of the humans characters dancing with them.
I also know of a Thai family in the US who refused to visit their very sick teenage daughter because to do so, they would have to cross a couple of significant bridges, including one very large bridge.
In their particular segment of Thai culture, they believed that demons and spirits haunted large bridges and to cross the bridges represented several types of danger imposed by the demons and spirits.
I felt sad for the family, especially the suffering girl, who felt abandoned - however, I did not make fun of the family's beliefs or culture.
I week ago, Dennis was opposed to mocking statements made about Doug Winnail's marriage.
I had made a few inappropriate statements about the matter and was introspective enough to see my mistake and admit it.
However, I did state that Dennis should write his rules for what is permissible to mock and what is off limits.
I bet that Dennis would not mock the culture of the Thai family who believed demons infested bridges, or other cultural beliefs about demons that he and I may find odd.
However, it does seem that there is a different standard Dennis sets for himself and the standards he articulates for others.
So, again, I state that Dennis should record the rules for appropriate conduct on this blog.
And yes Dennis, I know you know who I am.
However, there is definitely bad juju in outing me.
Dennis:
There is a long American tradition of derogating Native Americans. A prominent figure in this realm was Cotton Mather, a puritan and Harvard graduate in early New England. Here is a quote from Cotton Mather and its historical context:
"...the Pequots resisted the migration of settlers into the Connecticut Valley in 1637, a party of Puritans surrounded the Pequot village and set fire to it. About five hundred Indians were burned to death or shot while trying to escape; the Whites devoutly offered up thanks to God that they had lost only two men. The woods were then combed for any Pequots who had managed to survive, and these were sold into slavery. Cotton Mather was grateful to the Lord that "on this day we have sent six hundred heathen souls to hell." (Peter Farb, Man's Rise to Civilization, 1968)
Mather saw Native Americans as diabolical - the purveyors of witchcraft. But I wonder if that were not just rationalization in support of a desire to exterminate them and take their lands. (For those with a historical bent, research will review that the Quakers, in contrast with the Puritans, had a completely different experience with Native Americans.) In the description above, what we really see is a tribe of Indians trying to protect their homeland from invading Europeans and miserably succumbing. Mather came into the picture and conveniently laid a spiritual varnish on the battle. This must have made the Puritans feel that God endorsed their "holy" depredations. In general, I take the early reports of Indian cruelties with a grain of salt. It is likely that this was the European colonial media churning out "fake news" to justify extermination and cruelties which just coincidentally led to the acquisition of lucre. And these "patriotic" accounts were grafted into American History.
It is possible that this same dynamic was at work when Irael invaded in Canaan. I am looking into this. I believe it is possible that the characterization of Canaanites in the OT may have been convenient rather than inspired. If we couple this with the fact that archaeology does not support a major campaign against the Canaanites in the time of Joshua, something seems wrong.
And to bring it all full circle, it would be interesting to get the leaders in Splinterdom to provide a statement on how Native Americans should have been treated by "Israel" in colonial America. I think the view, if any Splinterist leaders were willing to provide a public viewpoint, would be surprising.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dennis, now that you've changed the first picture, how long will it be before someone claims to be traumatized because it reminds them of Joseph Tkach Jr.?
Any minute now! :)
===========================
Anonymous said: I week ago, Dennis was opposed to mocking statements made about Doug Winnail's marriage.
I had made a few inappropriate statements about the matter and was introspective enough to see my mistake and admit it.
However, I did state that Dennis should write his rules for what is permissible to mock and what is off limits.
I bet that Dennis would not mock the culture of the Thai family who believed demons infested bridges, or other cultural beliefs about demons that he and I may find odd.
However, it does seem that there is a different standard Dennis sets for himself and the standards he articulates for others.
So, again, I state that Dennis should record the rules for appropriate conduct on this blog.
And yes Dennis, I know you know who I am.
However, there is definitely bad juju in outing me."
Anything I, or anyone else might say here is a comment in a moment on a specific topic. I personally make every effort to share honest impressions etc. I know Doug personally but not all the factors in their lives of course. So in that case, it just struck me to be kind to a couple that has worked out whatever needed to be worked out. Keeping "the Bible says" out of real life situations is more how I think now than in the past where it simply caused more problems than it solved.
You're right, I'd not knowingly or intentionally mock anyone though I am sure it can appear like mocking when in my mind I might be more explaining a topic as I understand it. It's why what the NT calls scoffers about "where is the promise of his coming" I see "Observers of what actually is" with the writer incapable of saying "I know... it has been a long time and maybe soon isn't so soon. I understand the doubt"
What I would never say to anyone here is what RSK said to me in a post on why the hymn of my youth "This is My Father's World" was not a deception on "Satan is the god of this world". He evidently felt that as an agnostic/atheist I had no right to comment but in my wildest dreams would never say to anyone, "Dennis, if you want to jerk off to yourself, buy a goddamned mirror" (RSKWednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:09:00 PM PST) I suppose he could reconcile the contrast in my beliefs and recounting my experience.
Is it helps, I have no idea who you are...
I did take down the post in a bit of "Fuck Banned" but the urge passes. Thanks for the comment.
Neotherm noted: "It is possible that this same dynamic was at work when Irael invaded in Canaan. I am looking into this. I believe it is possible that the characterization of Canaanites in the OT may have been convenient rather than inspired. If we couple this with the fact that archaeology does not support a major campaign against the Canaanites in the time of Joshua, something seems wrong."
Could not agree more. Bogeymen are part and parcel of others justifying their state or intentions. I also find the ranting about "The Pharisees" in the Gospels as over blown and not historically accurate as to how the Pharisees were actually perceived by the public in the day. The rants actually more fit the public view of the Sadducees which were lackeys and kiss ups to Rome which went over like the proverbial "lead brick" in the day with the public.
It is partly why I find Paul's view of being "a Pharisee of the Pharisee's" and other views of his perhaps not to be a Pharisee at all, giving himself a false pedigree with the motive to be taken seriously of impressive education he many not have had at all. He may in fact been a mere temple thug or policeman for the Temple Sadducees. No pharisee, who hated Rome, would claim Roman citizenship to get him out of a jam. I believe he was. He may have purchased it with church funds along the way to protect himself when needed. Ultimately it seems it didn't.
Winners write the story and all that...
Dennis:
Of course, I disagree with you on both the attitude of Jesus towards Pharisees and your characterization of Paul. But let me add that I think we might find some redeeming value in the Pharisees, and we might find some irritating qualities in the Apostle Paul. But this broader viewpoint does not amount to an overarching theme in either instance.
And if the victims wrote the history, it would be just as tendentious. And Native Americans were completely excluded from the history game because at the time they were pre-literate.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Yeah, I said it. Because you making new posts just to talk about yourself (and blatantly trying to steer it into a "why would an agnostic/athiest (meaning yourself) think...") was obnoxious and narcissistic. And I'd say it again.
Well, RSK, I think that everyone has an innate need to remain relevant in some way. Usually the most memorable people in all of our life experiences have been the overachievers, and the colossal screw ups. Most folks are varying percentages of both. Nothing wrong with the occasional shocking statement from either side to restore the normal order of things for someone who has temporarily jumped the track. It's what free speech and checks and balances are all about. You did a good thing!
In terms of a general observation for the entire audience, Banned has attracted some strong writers over the years, and each seems to have their following. That following has a shelf life. The fund of ideas of each writer is what keeps us engaged as readers. Some are naturally idea people, with a seemingly endless flow of new material. Others have a limited collection of strong ideas, but the collection ends up becoming repeated, and readers become immune. Writing and the responding comments it earns are a two way exchange of energy, each feeding from the other. The thing is, what does one do when this energy slowly tapers away? How do you recapture that energy? Most people of Armstrongian background have difficulty with this, because a church member learns the basic stories, doctrines, and policies in a relatively compressed time period, and from that point forward, it all becomes rebops, and repetition. In fact, in Armstrongism, once one has found "the truth", one is told basically to stop looking.
My advice to anyone, no matter how young or old one happens to be, is to keep learning, to continue to experience new things as much as one is able. When we write, we write from our abundance, from or surplus. It just pours out spontaneously. So, it becomes very important to keep the pipeline full!
(And for the record, Dennis, it had nothing to do with you being agnostic/atheist at all, I'm not a COGlodyte. But you trying to spin it that way makes for pretty funny stuff.)
Dennis will attack anyone he perceives to be attacking him.
It's basic human behavior, not highly evolved, and generally associated with being a COG minister.
Thus, the basis of this current thread and the harsh comments to RSK.
Dennis wrote:
"Is it helps, I have no idea who you are..."
Yes, that does help a bit, because I highly value anonymity.
However, I've never trusted COG ministers, even when I believed, with all of my heart, that the WCG was God's one true church.
That made no sense and needed no explanation at the time; now it makes perfect sense to me.
Last week, Dennis wrote that he knew who some of the Anonymous posters are.
I instantly assumed that was a threat to out those who dared to state a disagreement with him.
Now that Dennis states that he does not know who I am, I am again motivated to believe the statement about knowing who we are was intended as an in the moment threat.
Obviously, we are going to experience much disagreement; yet we could do so without threats.
Threats and lashing out reinforce the unpredictability and distrust of COG ministers.
I am interested in the fact that Dennis has never reveled the secret of a son of one of the splinter leaders.
This secret is purported to be of the magnitude that it would destroy the father, but the telling of the secret would also destroy the father/son relationship.
It's a conundrum; should the secret be told in hopes of liberating people enslaved in the splinter, or should the family relationship be protected?
I suppose the answer to the conundrum may have something to do with any assurances Dennis may have given the son, or whether Dennis ever feels attacked over the situation.
I wonder if the plight of the enslaved ever enter the equation?
It's also intriguing to contemplate whether certain personality types were attracted to the COG ministry, and how much the COG culture impacted what was already formed in these personalities.
Sometimes I think it's unkind and unfair to study Dennis, and at times, it has not been permitted - yet, analyzing and relating one's experience in the COG is what Dennis states he does and is the purpose of the blog.
5:29, The dilemma you described could have been totally avoided if the secret had been fully kept. In other words, if someone ever asks you not to reveal a secret with which they have entrusted you, it is best not to tease third party others with the information that a secret has been shared, even if you don't tell what the secret is. I'd have to believe that people have pestered both Randy and Dennis to reveal it.
I am interested in the fact that Dennis has never reveled the secret of a son of one of the splinter leaders.
This secret is purported to be of the magnitude that it would destroy the father, but the telling of the secret would also destroy the father/son relationship.
==================================
I am assuming you are referring to Dave Pack's son having been in touch with me years ago. It was his son that said he could "destroy" his father. He did not tell me how and did not share with me any information to that effect. So I know nothing about what specifically he was referring to and have never heard from him again. He only said he could. He asked me to return a specific letter he sent to his mom about his father that he shared and that I gladly did. Nor did I keep a copy of it. If I did not make that clear when I originally shared that, I apologize.
If someone shares anything with me of a personal nature, we talk it over and then they ask for their privacy though they were glad we could talk about it, I will honor their wishes anytime. That's just good ethics.
I recently just made a very good and close friend, who called me first and who has been reading my views for years, of one who was "there" big time. I had said some unkind things about him over the years and now we laugh about it. He notes that he deserved some of it. I assured him he didn't now after I know the rest of the story to my personal satisfaction. He has answered many questions I had about the whole experience and given me a better perspective than my own assumed ones on several major topics. I never would have guessed he and I would ever cross paths in a good way but we indeed have.
I do know, as do others, the real identities of some few who post anonymously. I don't really care how they choose to post. I would never reveal that to anyone under any circumstance unless the person no longer cared and then it would be up to them to do so.
I don't believe it is fair for anyone to take anonymous pot shots or imply motives no one could possibly know with such a weak connection to the person being criticized. I could have posted anonymously for two decades now if I chose to but that didn't seem either authentic of me or credible so I chose to just share openly as myself. It has its moments.
As always, I would ask that more here contribute by posting their own views and experiences for others to read and comment on and take up the slack or add topics not covered to avoid the problem of repetition. Only Lonnie and Neo have done this at times, and it is appreciated.
Con't...
con't
"Anonymous said...
Dennis will attack anyone he perceives to be attacking him.
It's basic human behavior, not highly evolved, and generally associated with being a COG minister.
Thus, the basis of this current thread and the harsh comments to RSK."
======================================
I never attacked RSK. I commented on his anonymous and crude statement about "jerking off to myself" etc, which I frankly did not understand what provoked it and I did assume he may have though, as an agnostic, it was weird I'd post about a favorite church hymn. I can only imagine the blowout if I had said that to someone here. I think it was a very crude attack on his part. But anonymously, all things are possible.
If RSK wishes to call or text me anytime to chat in real time, 864 905 9506. Just let me know it's you so I know it's a real call. Home every evening after 5 PST
The posting was referencing Gerald Weston's comments on the beautiful hymn "This is My Father's World" was a deceptive hymn because of the worn-out use by the COGs of the "Satan is the God of this World really" which was the topic of his posting.
I realize I am pretty much done with posting and am quite capable of taking any complaints or negative observations to heart, think them over and decide what serves me best. I do hope others of you up your own contribution to the site by sharing your own current beliefs and observations about your own experiences with others. It will refresh the site which is what it probably needs after so many years. I have said and shared all I can and too much at times in hindsight.
I do find being someone's occasional punching bag somewhat challenging. Most would.
Best to all and I sincerely mean that. I understand the journey and the baggage it leaves us all with no matter where we fit and what part we played in the drama of it all.
Dennis@6:44, 6:47,
I always respect your views and ethics. You are ever ready to give a reason for believing what you believe. You are an example of "live and let live", ever caring and sharing. Carry on contributing to Banned.
Uh oh, RSK! You've just been called to the principal's office!
More like getting called to the playground to listen to the crying girl with a broken jump rope. Dear god, Dennis. You got called out one time for an annoyingly self-stroking post. Hardly the end of the world. Quit handwringing like a drama queen already.
Post a Comment