If You're Interested in Christ or the Gospel, CGI Is NOT for You!
The latest offerings from the Church of God International may be of interest to ultra-conservative Americans, but folks who are interested in hearing about Jesus and his message will be very disappointed! I can hear it now: "There goes Lonnie and his sour grapes again!" "Hasn't he got anything better to do?" "Why must he persist in ATTACKING Bill Watson and Adrian Davis?" "Those guys are living rent-free in his head!" "Why is he ATTACKING his family's religion?" "He is an accuser of the brethren!" "Satan is using him to ATTACK God's Church!" The responses are so predictable, because this is the way that Armstrongites have ALWAYS reacted to criticism. Since the days of Herbie, they can run traditional Christians and their beliefs into the ground; but you let anyone criticize what they're doing, and the howls of "persecution" are deafening!
In the latest edition of The International News, there aren't ANY articles wholly devoted to Jesus, his message, or salvation through him. Instead, we find there the following articles: Were the Ten Commandments in Force Before Moses? by Mike James, What Is Mankind's Option for Survival? by Bill Watson, Kung Fu Fighting by Jeff Flanick, A Brief Review of "Thin Again" by Michelle Algarra, What is an Abortion? by W. Adam Boyd, Enroute to the Kingdom by George Roper (at least George mentions Jesus and his teachings), Questions and Answers by Vance Stinson (What about imprecatory prayers? and Is cremation an acceptable option?), Male and Female He Created Them by Mike James, Feast of Tabernacles 2022 in Poughkeepsie, New York, an obituary for Kenneth Bounds, Why Baptize? by Robert Onsando, and Four Baptized in Sheridan, Wyoming.
In his article, Bill Watson wrote: "Consider for a moment the fact that the United States has just appointed a female Supreme Court Justice that cannot define what a women is!" <I think he meant "woman"> "How is that kind of nonsense acceptable? It is also now confirmed that the disgusting information coming out from Hunter Biden’s laptop and the revelation of his business and salacious shenanigans are legitimate and unlike originally portrayed as 'conspiracy,' is now shocking most of us that this is real! Why hasn’t he been arrested and indicted?" He continued: "Compound that with Ghislaine Maxwell’s disclosure of names and mountains of video evidence revealing 'highly influential' men and women participating in and guilty of statutory rape—and shockingly, not one of these powerful and famous political or business leaders, movie stars, or educators have been arrested, indicted, and convicted! How does this happen? Where is the outrage? Who is protecting these people? And what is really behind the 'curtain' that these leaders and elitists don’t want us, the people, to know about them? What evil has been perpetrated? It’s obvious: if the truth were to come out, as it has about Mr. Hunter Biden, Anthony Weiner, Bernie Madoff, and so many others, this would be extremely embarrassing and ruin their images and positions of influence, as was done to some of the above-mentioned men—and now, most recently, Prince Andrew. Frankly, it should lead to the conviction and incarceration of ALL those participants!" Of course, there isn't any mention of Donald Trump or his possible crimes!
Not convinced that Mr. Watson's article is too focused on the current political culture in the United States? Bill continued: "Presently, the United States is agonizing and languishing from misappropriated policies that are igniting inflation, interest rates, energy co-dependence, and the dilution of American culture due to immigration policies that are weak in managing restriction and restraint!" Still not convinced? Watson noted: "Never in our lifetime have we seen such negligence of law enforcement. The conditions surrounding the borders of the United States are now being characterized as an INVASION! The smuggling of fentanyl, meth and other drugs is out of control. And much of this is due to the Cartel dominating the human trafficking, drug, and weapons smuggling industry! In the meantime, government policies are weaponizing specific segments of the government, to reduce the rule of law—and the increasing crime rate substantiates this fact—“blood touches blood”—random violence is now common in many of the western cities of the USA, Britain, and Europe, due to the lack of law enforcement!" To be fair, he does go on to say that Christ is going to return someday and establish God's Kingdom on this earth.
But Pastor Watson's article for The International News was NOTHING compared to the sermon he delivered this past Sabbath at Medina! He insisted that the United States has an ethnicity problem, not a racism problem. He suggested that someone might have a problem if they married a "black lady, brown lady, or an Asian lady." He went on to complain about our modern usage of the word "gay." Apparently, Bill yearns for the good ole days when that word meant "happy." From there he launched into another diatribe about the "CCP" Virus (for those of you who may not be familiar with this terminology in referring to Covid-19, it stands for the Chinese Communist Party Virus). Bill insisted that the Chinese "seeded" the world with the virus. He noted that all of this used to be regarded as a conspiracy theory, but that now we know it's a "fact." He went on to say that Doctors Birx and Fauci have changed their minds again and are now saying that natural immunity is just as good as being vaccinated. Before finishing, he also mentioned the "87,000" new IRS agents, the Chinese threat to Taiwan, and the outrageously high gas prices (although they've recently dropped, I share his discomfort with those gas prices). He did, however, return to a semi-religious theme to conclude his message - He encouraged everyone to attend the Feast of Tabernacles to experience a foretaste of God's Kingdom!
Even so, Bill's sermon was mild compared to Pastor Adrian Davis' sermon just last month! The HOUR AND A HALF long sermon was a diatribe against the Biden Administration. He called his sermon "Build Bad Better" - you know, a not-so-subtle dig at Biden's "Build Back Better" slogan. Once again, one has to wonder why a Canadian pastor is so obsessed with the political culture in the United States! Then, like Bill, he returned to one of his favorite targets - the government's efforts to curtail the spread of the Covid-19 Virus. He said that government restrictions on large assemblies had directly contradicted the command in Scripture to assemble for worship on a regular basis! He even went on to suggest that a SWAT team would have descended on anyone who had tried to hold church services during that period! If that wasn't bad enough, he went on to talk in very graphic terms about the Monkey Pox virus. One has to hope that there weren't any children in his audience as he launched into a talk about how most of the current outbreak could be attributed to "men sharing their genitals with other men!" When he finally got back around to "Build Back Better," Davis claimed that "you will own nothing, but you will be happy!" And, just in case that wasn't explicit enough, he went on to say that it was really a return to communism and feudalism! Talk about over-the-top and inflammatory rhetoric! He went on to declare that "the American system of honoring the individual is dead!" Ironically, at times, it seemed like Pastor Davis was quoting Yuval Harari more than he was the Bible! At one point, he even challenged anyone to offer just one decision that the Biden Administration has made that makes America better. According to Pastor Davis, every decision that the current President of the United States has made has been calculated by him to DESTROY the nation he leads!
Whether or not you agree with these POLITICAL opinions is immaterial to the point this post is making - It is CLEARLY NOT the job of ANY minister of Jesus Christ to be offering such opinions from the pulpit! Most of us attend Church for spiritual enrichment, nourishment, and fellowship. If we want to listen to MAGA talking points, we can turn on our television sets and go to the FOX News channel or any one of a number of other conservative media outlets! A Christian Church should be preaching about the life, teachings, death, resurrection, and messaging of Jesus of Nazareth - period! You can't even call this stuff prophecy - it's just PURE politics!
And, just to cut my critics off at the pass, I have raised these concerns privately with Bill Watson, Vance Stinson, Mike James, Jeff Reed, Wynn Skelton, and others within the Church of God International's leadership team. You can clearly see from my latest report just how effective those contacts were! To be fair, CGI's leadership did make a feeble attempt to rein in Bill's and Adrian's messaging about Covid-19, but (once again) you can see just how much good that did! Also, please note, that I have used their own words - written and spoken - to criticize their messaging. I have NOT attacked personalities. My criticisms are focused on the messaging of these men.
In conclusion, for those Armstrongites who may be looking for a more reasonable, less political, and more spiritually focused organization with which to fellowship, the Church of God International is NOT that church! Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, and Bob Thiel have got NOTHING on these folks!
Lonnie Hendrix
47 comments:
CGI appears to be a living example of the gene pool cleansing itself. The sorts of ignorance these folks are spouting and operating under is ultimately self-punishing. Imagine actually believing that their favorite conspiracy theories are now being validated!
Back about 15 years ago, I Iearned from some knowledgeable forum and blog people in places like Texas and Montana that when WCG had splintered, sizable groups of church members went off to join the militias. Apparently, it was not that much of a philosophical leap for them to do that. It was a kind of an extreme Republican version of going off and joining a commune. History has shown that neither extreme leftists like the Marxists or communists, or extreme rightists like the Nazis offer any sort of solution which is compatible with a thriving human soul. Right and left are polar opposites, and the more extreme the participants become, the more they continue to move around that circle until one is just as authoritarian and restrictive as the other. It's why both extremes call on another fascists, and are actually quite accurate in so doing! Freedom doesn't result from existing close to these extreme poles, it is in the balanced area in the middle, between the poles.
CGI is on the path to becoming radicalized, if they aren't there already.
This is exactly why we stopped attending CGI. All we heard, week after week, was this endless political vomit stream. We are surrounded by it in the press, news, and tv in an endless bombardment of rhetoric, half-truths, and lies. Then to walk into church services or pick up a publication and be subjected to more of it totally turned us off and others who have also left.
If you were to ask Watson or James to explain in detail what was accomplished by Jesus Christ they cannot. To even ask then to do that would turn them into mocking you.
Goodbye, and good riddance. We will never set foot in CGI again nor will they get any more money.
Loony Lonnie said, "Whether or not you agree with these POLITICAL opinions is immaterial to the point this post is making - It is CLEARLY NOT the job of ANY minister of Jesus Christ to be offering such opinions from the pulpit! "
MY COMMENT - Oh really? Have you ever heard of the civil rights movement? Where do you think the civil rights movement originated from? It was as political as it was social and economic. Are you condemning the Black ministers in the Black Churches for offering their opinions from the pulpit during the civil rights movement? People like Dr. Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy to name a few?
When Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work". Did he really mean it? Is this an inspired statement?
I ask because earlier in 2 Timothy 3: 1-5 he writes, "3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people." Is this also an inspired statement by Paul?
Now apparently you believe it is wrong to point out from the pulpit the politics of any one of the conditions listed by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 despite what Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. For example, "disobedient to parents". There is one political party that believes the State has full authority over what children will be taught (sounds fascist to me) and there is another political party that says PARENTS should have authority over what THEIR children should be taught. Plain and simple, the Party that believes the State should have control is being "disobedient to parents". We saw that political debate play out in school board meetings and in the Virgina Gubernatorial election with Glenn Youngkin in 2021. But, according to Loony Lonnie, that should not be discussed from the pulpit. Just like the civil rights movement shouldn't have been.
How about slanderous (verse 3)? Which political party slandered a President by accusing him of being a Russian Agent - with no evidence whatsoever other than an unverified opposition research paper Steele Dossier and lying to a FISA Court? Makes Richard Nixon look like a saint. But, according to Loony Lonnie, such an example of slander should not ever be discussed from the pulpit. Just like the civil rights movement shouldn't have been.
I could go on, but you get my drift. There is nothing wrong with discussing the contemporary issues of our time in Church from the pulpit. There is a long history of that occurring throughout US history. We cannot separate the political environment as Lonnie would wish from the social and economic realities that are intertwined particularly when discussing Biblical statements such as 1 Timothy 3:1-5 or on moral issues such as civil rights applying Jesus' statement in Matthew 7:12. Sometimes Lonnie, a backbone is needed when discussing moral matters which is the Church's place to do so.
Richard
I should add, personally I could care less about GTA's splinter Church and what they may say from the pulpit. The reality is Loony Lonnie hates the policies (politics) of America First. He labels me an "extremist" in an exchange we had earlier this summer. What did I say to Loony Lonnie for him to label me an extremist? I said (and I quote myself now), "What is “political extremism” about policies that promote lower taxes, less government regulation, peace through strength, belief in the rule of law including border security (which every other Country in the World except us seems to have), love for our Country and our Constitution?
I never did get an answer to my question from Lonnie.
I say, if Loony Lonnie believes the exact opposite of what I just wrote above about what I believe, then Hendrix/Miller (or whatever his name is) must believe in policies that promote MORE government regulation, peace through weakness and appeasement, does not believe in the rule of law including promoting open borders, hates our country (almost as much as he seemingly hates his own father) and hates our Constitution. Lonnie, that would be the opposite of what I wrote in which you labeled me an extremist. And that doesn't make YOU the REAL extremist?
Richard
Richard/Lake of Fire Church of God,
In my post of 18 July 2022 (The Radicalization of Two Men), as in this post, I argued against political commentary of ANY stripe from the pulpit. In response to a comment by Richard, I wrote: "As for your own extremism, I make no judgment - I don't know you. I do agree with others who have commented here that most of your comments prior to this post have seemed well thought-out and reasonable." In other words, I did NOT call Richard an "extremist" - that is a LIE (How's that for backbone, Richard?). Even so, in light of your two comments here, I will invite our readers to consider whether or not you should wear that label!
Like Watson and Davis, you have confused conservative ideology with God's ideology. Sorry, Richard, God is NOT a Capitalist, Socialist, Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, or Republican! Those are HUMAN labels for HUMAN ideologies, and NONE of them offer REAL solutions to our problems! For TRUE Christians, the solution to this world's troubles is the return of Jesus Christ and the establishment of God's Kingdom! In other words, the overthrow and supplanting of ALL of this world's governments and ideologies (and that includes democracy and the United States). I do NOT hate this country (I served it honorably and with distinction in the U.S. Army), and I firmly believe it to be the BEST that this world has to offer. Nevertheless, from God's perspective, this world's best AIN'T good enough!
The fact is that Jesus taught his disciples to render unto Ceasar the things that belonged to him (those things which belonged to his sphere). He did NOT preach rebellion against Rome or criticize Roman policies or governance. Instead, he criticized the RELIGIOUS leaders among his own people! Christ submitted himself to the Roman authorities - even to the point of being executed by them. Likewise, the Apostle Paul used his Roman citizenship to his own advantage and also submitted to imprisonment and execution by the state. Indeed, there is NOTHING in the New Testament to suggest that the early Church had ANYTHING to do with Roman or Jewish politics - NOTHING!
As for what Paul wrote to Timothy, he talked about the moral condition of society in the last days. I have NEVER said that there was anything wrong with the Church or its ministers talking about the moral behavior of the society of which they are a part. There isn't even anything wrong with talking about the moral implications of policy. Even so, the New Testament (Paul's writings included) make very PLAIN that Christians are NOT supposed to become entangled in civilian affairs - that we are NOT to participate in Babylon. Our primary citizenship is in heaven. We are supposed to be pilgrims and strangers on this earth. We're supposed to be praying: Your Kingdom come, Your will be done on earth (as it currently is in heaven)!
We are all entitled to have political opinions and to express them freely in the marketplace of ideas - the town square, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, radio, television, etc. The Christian Church, however, is a place for talking about Jesus Christ, his message, and the salvation which is available to us through him. There are many places and opportunities in the United States to talk politics, but I continue to insist that the Ekklesia is NOT one of them!
The democratic party and their main stream media choir is the defacto religion of America today. Criticizing them is the equivalent of Christ criticizing the Pharisees. But the complaint of them not teaching about Christ and the application of God's laws is legitimate. The ACOGs have always chosen to feed their members spiritual milk rather than meat. Gotta keep the members dumbed down and ignorant.
Richard's not a bad guy. Sadly, he's just picked another wrong savior. Not everyone learned from their Armstrongish detour into the Twilight Zone! Not even those who saved all their notes!
There are many parallels. As Jesus came and said that we need to get back to the law as originally intended, Trump came and said we need to get back to the Constitution as intended. Both were attacked mercilessly by the ruling elite. Constant false accusations and attempts to bring them down were cooked up by those trying to protect their power. The more you look into this the more parallels you will see.
Man hasn't changed.
This post is quite sad. Far too much typing for what purpose ??
Empty lives being filled with what exactly ?
“The Christian Church, however, is a place for talking about Jesus Christ, his message, and the salvation which is available to us through him.“ Where might such a Church be? If you happen to know.
Lonnie,
Surely you believe that border security is wise, that we know who is crossing our border and that they aren’t criminals, traffickers, and/or fentanyl pushers. (This from someone who believes more immigrants from Mexico would actually be good for our country.
Smaller locally-controlled government is generally better…in our government and our churches and it’s not like there would not be plenty of abuse oversight with the internet.
Smaller gov would also address many social issues that disrupt society when overarching laws are placed on communities that disagree one way or the other.
Do you think a state government that limits abortion doctors to only performing abortions at less than 3 months will create an increased respect and value of human life? I do. Maybe just maybe those supporting abortion at any time will wonder why at least 60% of the population does not (it would be very European for them to consider that). Maybe it will give them a greater perspective on the value of human life??
Maybe you would support parents being the primary moral/social guide for their children rather than federally mandated teaching lessons on these topics?
Maybe increased taxation is worse even than the COG demand for tithes/offerings? Nah, but still liberty reducing.
These are generally the stances of the conservative party, and despite the flaws in particularly crony capitalism, conservatives at EVERY income level give more to charity than liberals (shocking! look it up if you doubt that). Also, conservatives at every income level have a lower crime rate than those supporting liberal policies. In many instances the crime rate among liberals is several multiple times higher.
These things do matter.
Will any human government bring utopia? Of course not, that is a strawman argument. But, there are sound policies that can improve our lives particularly on the local level. We should get involved. In small government you can make a difference.
Anon 10:28,
Your comment seems to be for the purpose of antagonizing Richard. He does not in any way think some government is his new god. You know that is a ridiculous comment.
What is extremely SAD is comparing ANY politician to Jesus Christ! Unfortunately, some folks have made the United States of America a religion. For them, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Federalist Papers are sacred documents (part of a patriotic canon) - the White House, Capital, and monuments serve as its temples - politicians and bureaucrats serve as its priests (the President being the High Priest). They worship their idol with numerous hymns (The Star-Spangled Banner, America, God Bless America, America the Beautiful, etc.) and numerous symbols (Flags, seals, portraits, etc.) and rituals (voting, standing for the national anthem, pledge of allegiance, etc.). And, like the Christian religion, this secular religion has its Catholics and Protestants (Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Libertarians, etc.). Also, as is the case with many of the Christian sects, these different groups have a tendency to demonize each other and point out how the other side has betrayed their god (America) or their Scriptures (Constitution). The Great Republic even has its own pantheon of martyrs - those who gave the last full measure of devotion to the object of their devotion! Sorry, NO - Democrats are a political party - they are NOT Demoncrats - they are NOT Pharisees! Likewise, Republicans are another political party - they are NOT God's party - they are NOT the party of the saints! Too much thinking and too much typing? Let's not make anyone uncomfortable and ask them to think about what they're saying and doing!
The interesting aspect about this is that there is about to be a drastic shift in priorities as it becomes more and more obvious that the primary issue of our times is actually global warming/climate change. If it were true that only the reservoirs and rivers providing fresh water for the Southwestern desert in the USA were drying up, the climate change deniers might have a leg to stand on. But, it's not. The same phenomenon is happening around the world in diverse places such as Western Europe, where WWII relics and artifacts from ancient cultures in major rivers are now visible due to plunging water levels, and China's rivers are also suffering. Farmers are already warning about crop shortages, because amazingly they are lower in priority than other industries, as is life in the big cities.
The massive climate induced fires in Australia have kicked unanticipated levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, gases which will require years to dissipate and are already worsening our weather patterns, New absolutely huge breakaways of ice masses in Greenland will soon be raising sea levels up to a foot, which will place coastal cities in increasing jeopardy of flooding. El Nino and La Nina currents, which used to regularly alternate, appear to have permanently shifted, with devastating consequences for the southern regions of the USA. There will be no miraculously huge snow pack in the Rockies this season to rejuvenate the Colorado River.
Industrial supply chain disruptions and shortages were inconvenient. As climate induced shortages begin to affect not only the pocketbooks of consumers, but also the quality and availability of the food we eat, all of this extreme left vs hard right political nonsense will take a back seat to the survival issues which face us all.
You could not be more wrong, 7:22. I genuinely feel sorry for Richard if those are his real beliefs. You could make a good case for the possibility that he, himself, is being provocative by calling Lonnie "Loony Lonnie".
In contrast, Lonnie responds with well-measured logic and mature Christian principle as he attempts to expose Richard to the high ground. While citing traditional Republican principles which many of us embrace, Richard favors an extremist and divisive application of those principles, one that has not only mortally divided our country, but also the GOP itself.
A young lady asked me back in 2016, "What will happen to us if Trump is elected?" She was understandably scared, being of Native American heritage. I expressed to her that we have checks and balances in place starting with our founding documents, which will limit the damage Donald Trump could do, if worse case scenario occurred and the American people actually elected him. The problem became, that while wrapping himself in the Constitution, he found ways to circumvent many of those checks and balances, and he and his most rabid supporters are still doing exactly that. He complains about "deep state" while creating his own deep state, stacking the Supreme court with a couple of justices who perjured themselves to congress, and getting his storms troopers elected and appointed as election officials to ensure future hard right victories throughout the future. He only cares for his vision of our country, not out country itself. Patriotism to him is being loyal to him. There is a well publicized groundswell effort amongst his followers to rewrite the Constitution even as they claim to defend the original one. They've even constructed their own media to support their conspiracy theories and the big lie, all the while complaining about so-called "fake news".
A lot of people have been fooled. We need to get past that if we are to survive in any sort of traditional sense with our national values intact.
Loony Lonnie said, "In response to a comment by Richard, I wrote: "As for YOUR OWN EXTREMISM (emphasis mine), I make no judgment - I don't know you". And then wrote, " In other words, I did NOT call Richard an "extremist" - that is a LIE".
MY COMMENT - Your comment is very dishonest Lonnie. In your own words you refer to my "extremism", yet you try to pass your own lie that you didn't call me an extremist. What do you call people in your opinion who practice "extremism"? Aren't they called "Extremists"? It is exactly the same thing as calling someone who practices "Armstrongism" an "Armstrongite" and then lying that you didn't call them an Armstrongite because of their Armstrongism. That is word salad, and we will let the readers on Banned decide who the liar really is.
You fail again to explain why my political beliefs are "extremism" (and now why your beliefs are not extremism since your beliefs must be the exact opposite of mine).
I also want to point out you failed to acknowledge the historic role of the ministers in the black churches who spoke out from the pulpit and initiated the historic civil rights movement. In Loony Lonnie's world, the black ministers should have remained silent on this moral/political issue. Hmmm. I believe you did say in a comment to me in your post which I have renamed "The radicalization of Lonnie" that your family origins are from the Democrat Party of Slavery South. Perhaps that explains your denial.
Lonnie said, "Sorry, Richard, God is NOT a Capitalist, Socialist, Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, or Republican! Those are HUMAN labels for HUMAN ideologies, and NONE of them offer REAL solutions to our problems"
MY COMMENT - It is not lost on me that you left out Communism on your list of human ideologies. Please don't tell me you agree with Dave Pack's Common communism doctrine. While your statement is true that these are Human ideologies, we do have some evidence in the Bible of where God's beliefs are. Micah 4:4 reads, ""Everyone shall sit under their own vine and fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid". This verse denotes ownership. Capitalism requires private property. This verse indicates God favors private property, not State ownership of everything. "You will own nothing, and you will be happy" according to the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab and the Build Back Better elites.
We also know from Jesus own words in the Parable of the Talents, Matt. 25:14-30. In New Testament times, a talent was a sum of money. In the parable, he gave a sum of money to various individuals, and he praised those who made a profit saying, “well done good and faithful servant”. Profit motivation is a free-market capitalism concept Lonnie. Notice in this parable, that the talents were given to individuals and not to "the collective” government (i.e., Socialism). One servant Jesus condemned in the parable – the one who curled up in FEAR who had received the one talent and dug it in the ground and hid his master's money. Notice what he said, “so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant!” Jesus then tells the slothful servant he should have at least earned interest on the Talents. Guess what Lonnie? Interest is a capitalist concept! Lonnie, why would Jesus' use capitalist concepts in this parable if Jesus didn't lean toward capitalism?
Liberty is economic freedom. Economic freedom is political freedom. Political freedom brings social and religious freedom. When one of these freedoms are threatened by tyranny, then all the other accompanied freedoms are threatened as well. Ministers should speak out from the pulpit regarding these threats just as they have throughout our history UNTIL the utopia you speak of comes to fruition.
Richard
I do not nor have ever attended CGI. However, in every quote I see, theyre not actually discussing anything. Just reciting soundbites as if people dont hear them everywhere as it is.
Jim and Richard,
My political opinions are NOT the issue here, and I will NOT be drawn into a discussion about political ideology. Once again, the thesis of my post is that secular politics is NOT an appropriate topic for the ministry of the Ekklesia to be discussing! I would be happy to discuss my political views with you at kingsandpaupers@aol.com if you are interested.
I’m good with that Lonnie. And I’m not trying to drag you into any debate. The least of my concerns regarding the COGs is their identifying with some conservative principles. Now, I know this can offend some, but the danger of the cogs is religion not politics. They damage lives by their false doctrine not by spouting political beliefs to a largely non-voting group.
My issue with some of our former brethren is that after having been deceived by one false guru who extensively trusted disprovable conspiracy theories, and who dismissed highly educated established experts in many fields who were not part of his group as being bogus, insincere, and not to be trusted, and who ridiculed easily verifiable science when it conflicted with his own set of gnosticism, they have found and embraced another authoritarian strong man from the political world who employs the same flawed methodology. It just makes no sense at all to become suckered a second time after all of what we learned from painful experience. One man equated what he taught with the Bible and God, and tells us that if we disagree, we hate God. Another equates his political stances and policies with the Constitution, and tells those who disagree that they hate our country. Same darned thing as what we lived all over again for the second time!
Anon828,
This is a silly analogy. Firstly, many wcg analogies can be drawn to your posting: 1) needing to place people in a box like Armstrong did (or like the Hillary’s basket of deplorables).
2) Mischaracterizing a group you disagree with using strawmen the way Armstrong did with Christians outside wcg.
3) Thinking you now have the answers like Armstrong did after leaving COG7th day.
4) Not learning but rather believing your assumptions are fact as hwa did and as you do referring to a leader that I don’t recall anyone here holding up as the standard bearer.
5) Following a presumption of expert authority (e.g. Hwa) and not critically thinking for yourself. “The Science says” is an embarrassing thing for a scientist to say. We would say, “given the reasonable assumptions made and the data gathered, we conclude…” But, other studies or discoveries may prove otherwise which is the nature of Science.
Further, one can accept a conclusion but not accept the action to be taken.
Anyway, if analogies aren’t used to make something clearer, they are generally ways to not directly talk about the thing and to act as strawmen or as something pejorative.
Anyway2, even though I’m thankful for Trump saving us from Hillary, a huge number of conservatives wish he would not consider another run at the presidency.
Everything you type is a sorry sad mess.
Do Americans even think like how you type? The jury's out.
Jim,
Thank you! I agree with your comments throughout this Post thread particularly your response to Anon 848.
Richard
Loony Lonnie said, "My political opinions are NOT the issue here, and I will NOT be drawn into a discussion about political ideology. Once again, the thesis of my post is that secular politics is NOT an appropriate topic for the ministry of the Ekklesia to be discussing!"
MY COMMENT - Yes Lonnie. I acknowledged your thesis in my first comment on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 5:22:00 PM PDT.
I REJECT your thesis because it CAN BE an appropriate place when secular politics ITERSECT WITH AND VIOLATE Biblical principles. You believe that the Church should operate in a complete vacuum and focus solely on Jesus while apparently ignoring the words that Jesus spoke. That is why you refuse to acknowledge the role of the Black Churches in the civil rights movement which was a political/social movement. According to Lonnie's thesis, Churches should have also been completely silent during the rise of the National German Socialist Workers Party (NAZI) in Germany in the 1930s and silent when the NAZI's exterminated 6 million Jews.
I have asked you a number of questions in my Comments in this post which you have willfully ignored. I'll ask you one more question which I assume you will ignore as well. In the Olivet prophecy - words which Jesus spoke - when Jesus encouraged us to "Watch" (Matt. 24:36-42), what was Jesus asking us to watch for? Wars are political. False Jesuses can be political. Famines can have political consequences. Famines can also be created by politicians (Google Europe Farmers Protest). (Note: I reject the argument that the Olivet prophecy has been fulfilled). To separate the political environment from the Biblical principles Jesus spoke is why I reject your thesis.
I would agree with you that if a minister stood up and said from the pulpit, "Go vote for Mrs. X or Mr. Y", then that is wrong. And Jim reminds me that in the ACOGs we are talking about a group of people who have been conditioned to largely not vote. I remember an article in the WCG entitled "How would Jesus vote"?
In close, I find your Comment Lonnie to be laughably hypocritical, typical of the looney left. You came on Banned and posted a highly politically charged Post a couple months ago in your "Radicalization of Lonnie" as I have re-titled it. You slander me as an extremist (through your use of the word "extremism") and then lie about it, yet you refuse to explain why my stated beliefs are "extremism". To your credit, it seems you have tried to ratchet down the politics in this Post, yet even in this post you have made various politically over toned comments which I have largely ignored because I read the thesis of your post. Then you have the hypocrisy to say, "My political opinions are NOT the issue here, and I will NOT be drawn into a discussion about political ideology". That is laughable! If you had a pulpit, and I can argue Banned By HWA is an electronic pulpit (thankfully a free and open pulpit), you would be violating your own thesis because your first post was explicitly political, and this post has political over tones! Even you can't separate yourself from the political environment.
Lonnie, you are the poster boy for liberal hypocrisy.
Richard
Whew, Richard! Take it easy on our buddy, Lonnie. I do think you’ve been unfairly attacked and that it isn’t devolving into politics to ask questions of Lonnie. But, email him as he asks. I intend to. Very much appreciate you Lonnie!
Richard,
I have learned a great deal about you from your commentary here (and on the previous post - which you have taken it upon yourself to rename). From my perspective, you have talked yourself into being labeled an extremist. As I suggested in my initial response, I was reluctant to say that you were an extremist because I didn't know enough about you then - you have certainly filled in the blanks here!
I knew my father and Bill Watson personally. I was very familiar with their writings and sermons. Hence, my evaluation of their extremism was based on a large database of information.
Unfortunately, you have decided that I'm "the poster boy for liberal hypocrisy" because I have criticized the "conservative" political messaging of Bill Watson and company. You know what they say about folks who ASSume! Although my own place on the political spectrum is irrelevant to the thesis of this post, it would be a big stretch to conclude that I'm a liberal or a communist based on the information in my posts here. And, just for the record, I am neither!
You have mentioned the intersection of morality and politics a number of times - most prominently in connection with the roll that the Black Church played in the Civil Rights Movement. As you know, folks like Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lewis believed in "good trouble." They did NOT invade the Capitol building and beat police officers with flagpoles! Instead, they were the objects of police violence and submitted themselves to arrest and imprisonment for their cause. That's a little bit different from refusing to cooperate with law enforcement and even actively resisting their efforts to hold them accountable.
Instead, let's take a direct look at one of those "intersections" which demonstrates the moral complexity of these issues - abortion. Many on the right believe that life begins at conception (I share this view) and also believe that the state has a legitimate right to prevent a woman from obtaining a therapeutic abortion. Never mind, that some Christians cite Genesis 2:7 and say that life begins when a person draws his/her first breath! So, we are going to impose the dictates of our consciences on someone else? How is that not establishing a state religion? Moreover, many of those same conservatives will turn right around and insist that the government has no right to force them to be vaccinated against their will - that they have the right to choose the medical care that their bodies are subjected to! And, how do we reconcile a "right to life" with support for capital punishment and complete opposition to funding for prenatal care and nutrition? Again, these issues are very complex and touch on many issues of a moral nature/character.
As for the NAZIs, unfortunately, many Christian churches were silent (or even supportive) of their atrocities. Also, I have NEVER suggested that Christians should remain silent in the face of something so monstrously evil (we should be willing to face arrest, imprisonment, and execution in such instances). I would also say that anytime NAZIs and holocausts are drawn into discussions like this - red flags should be waving all over the place! Talk about a straw man! Come on, Richard, I would have NEVER suggested that you could have been a NAZI enabler! You make my point for me about the inappropriateness of introducing politics into a Christian forum!
A few additional thoughts:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2022/09/catholic-lutheran-baptist-episcopalian.html
I see nothing in Richard’s beliefs/comments that are extremist. The leftward lean of the media is a fact. And using the term Loony Lonnie is in response to being associated with extremism. Perhaps not the wisest thing, but hardly extremist.
Not going to say much about this topic, but it is ridiculous that this very day Biden used the words “extremists” and “semi fascist” to describe those that voted for Trump. Ridiculous.
Ah, hell, Jim. You must not remember Charlottesville. I had had great hopes for the Donald right up until then. That's when he legitimized the Nazis, and brought them into his version of a mainstream. That, to me, forecast his whole presidency.
BTW, if anyone hasn't seen it yet, Jamie Foxx pulled off the ultimate Trump impersonation. Look anywhere! It is viral everywhere. Warning: too much laughter can definitely cause a stomach ache!
I personally would choose words such as "deceived", "fooled", "partisans", etc., but then again, I'm not running for office.
Jim,
I definitely do NOT share the view that all Trump voters are extremists. You obviously share many of the views of Bill and Richard, and yet you are always ready to talk and reason with those who disagree with you. By definition, I would call that reasonable. I would also say that the left has more than its fair share of extremists. Extremism isn't just about where one finds him/herself on the political spectrum - There is an element of uncompromising fanaticism and blind devotion to an ideology/doctrine, party/sect, or politician/religious leader. By the way, my thesis would be the same if Bill's and Adrian's messages had been supportive of Biden!
Anon1116,
Here was Trump’s actual quote,
“There were very fine people on both sides, & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally."
Are you familiar with the actual quote? Just curious because it matters.
What part of this quote do you disagree with? Do you doubt that a very fine person could protest against the toppling of a historic statue of Robert E. Lee? It’s a beautiful statue. Do people even care that Lee was against slavery, but was loyal to Virginia and believed in states’ rights? Btw, states’ rights was a given at that time, not like today.
I have often, even as a child, looked at these statues and thought,”these were good men, but they were wrong, slavery had to end.” Is that not a good lesson for a child to receive, that admirable men can take up the wrong side of a cause? Sometimes the good cause we support is coupled with a cause/result that must not be (slavery). Is such a nuanced lesson as poignant without the statues? Maybe not. Not for me as a child.
People can’t seem to hold two competing concepts in their head. That is where extremism comes from or just stupidity.
Not directing my last sentence to anyone here, btw.
I accept that I share quite a few views with Richard, but not Bill or Adrian because my vantage point is very different from theirs.
Typical, 7:03! That was not Trump's original reaction and comment. Yes, he did eventually say what you quote him as saying, but it was after his first comments caused such outrage that his advisors and handlers pressured him to do some damage control and make the comments which you quoted. Those later revised comments were considered laughable because of the way that the militia groups embraced him, and actually grew tremendously during his presidency.
He has a history of speaking from the heart, and then backpedaling after it has been pointed out that he said something horribly politically damaging. Insiders have commented that they always cringed when he departed from his prepared script, because he really got unhinged.
January 6, prior to the insurrection, his security informed him that many of the people trying to gain entrance to his rally were carrying weapons. He rebuffed them, telling them to let them in because "they aren't here to harm me!" Once again, during the insurrection, many people close to him were urging him to do something to calm the participants, and he refused for hours. The worst damage was happening at the tunnel in the back where insurrectionists brawled for hours with police and security who were trying desperately to prevent them from breaching.
I've heard this revisionist thingie regarding the Civil War being about states rights many times before. My comment has been that it's too bad that some of the states picked a horrible test case (white peoples "right" to own people) to defend states rights. The Federal Government had the higher moral ground. This demonstrated that there was always the possibility for states to take a morally repugnant position.
False. It was in the very same interview with reporters that Trump excluded neo-nazis from those that were very fine people. His aides did not tell him to do this afterwards as you claim. He clarified the comment a few questions later when asked by reporters. It’s ridiculous to say otherwise. His original comment was accurate…there were very fine people on both sides. When asked who he meant he excluded neo nazis and the like. Sorry if that doesn’t fit in your mind.
Regarding January 6, not a single gun or knife was carried by any of the protesters. It barely qualifies as an “insurrection” under the definition and was really a protest as there was no way in #### that the government was threatened. The only person killed was a female veteran shot by a security guard.
I have conservative friends that take it more seriously than i do, but what did people really think a bunch of unarmed people mostly walking between the velvet roped walkways going to do??
I guess about what they did…not much.
I know several protesters also died of heart attacks and one guard died later but not from violence or being struck. One guard committed suicide some weeks later.
Too much pushing and shoving in one area for sure. But most gained entry by guards opening the doors for them.
If the guards truly feared for their lives, many protesters would have been killed.
I don’t see how this is different from the 60s protests or the antifa blm protests where fed buildings were overrun and huge damage and some death occurred. jim
I don’t think it’s revisionist, but I fully agree with the rest of your post. jim
Loony Lonnie said, “I definitely do NOT share the view that all Trump voters are extremists.”
MY COMMENT – I was not going to comment further on this Post, but this Lonnie statement again raised my eyebrows of yet another example of Miller Jones/Lonnie Hendrix’s dishonesty. In both of his political Posts here on Banned, he refers to my “extremism” in the Comments - yet he lies that he ever called me an “extremist” insulting the readers’ intelligence as if “Extremism” isn’t practiced by “Extremists”. Therefore, I have tried to isolate with Lonnie twice on both of his political rants here on Banned with no answer from Lonnie as to EXACTLY what in my stated political beliefs makes me an “extremist” (or “extremism” in his words) in his view. For those readers who have been following, there has been no answer from Lonnie.
Let me say that I would be the first to defend Lonnie’s First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights. I did mention in my stated beliefs my love for our US Constitution. I don’t know if my love for the US Constitution constitutes my “extremism” in Lonnie’s view. We don’t know because Lonnie won’t answer what constitutes my “extremism” in his view. Lonnie has a right to his opinion, but he does not have the right to smear and slander me without an explanation.
So, Lonnie, since we all have an Armstrong COG background, we all know the number “3” is the number of utter completions. Here is yet a third chance for you to answer to which one(s) of my political beliefs as articulated in my comment of Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 5:42:00 PM PDT (which was a “cut and paste” from a comment I made on the Radicalization of Lonnie Post a couple months ago) and identify which one(s) in my political beliefs constitute YOUR belief of my “extremism” in your view.
Otherwise, if you again fail to answer my simple question, then all the readers can conclude that your statement ““I definitely do NOT share the view that all Trump voters are extremists” is yet another lie. And evidence of your dishonesty. And please don’t cop out by saying you don’t want to discuss politics here. YOU are the one making these statements!
Richard
Btw, of course, it is Biden who in fact is walking back his disgusting comments from last night wherein he called conservatives semifascists and terrorists. If Trump had done this during a prepared speech he would have been excoriated for months. Biden will hear about it for a day or two and then back to normal.
There is a definite hypocrisy that should be plain to see by all. Maybe this is relevant to the COGs, maybe not, but, it does show how false beliefs and hypocrisies that should be easily seen remain unseen.
It is a bizarro world. Conservatives called violent and yet they are many times less violent (including sexually violent) than liberals are. Conservatives called hateful and the libs are the name callers, cancellers, callers of violence (biden and multiple others gonna beat up trump and there will be consequences to our conservative SC justices), and hissers.
Just a few bizarro instances.
Btw, here i am walking back a comment, but I don’t think liberals are violent per se, but it is what they accuse conservatives of and the percentages show they are several times more violent.
Richard,
Both ends of the political spectrum could be defined as extreme. For example, most folks in the United States would define complete control of the economy by the state as extreme. Likewise, most folks would regard no regulation or intervention by the state in the same way. Even so, in times past, ideology alone was almost never regarded as being sufficient to label someone as an extremist. Folks like William Buckley, George Will, and Bill Kristol, although very right of center, were regarded by most folks as intellectual giants, reasonable, and articulate representatives of their viewpoints.
No, I would say that the label of extremism requires a few more elements for most folks. What are those elements? Since you asked, I would say that things like: a fanatical devotion to an ideology or candidate, an unwillingness to compromise, an attitude of the end(s) justify any means - including a willingness to entertain intimidation or violence as a legitimate tool in advancing your position, and the tendency to ascribe evil or nefarious motives to your political opponents and/or seeing that person as your enemy. Extremists are also usually very intolerant of other viewpoints and are easily agitated by the expression of views which they see as contradicting or challenging their own. In connection with this last point, extremists are usually quick to resort to name-calling, labels, and other kinds of harsh and offensive rhetoric.
These are the kinds of criteria that most folks use to define someone as an extremist. At any rate, these are the criteria which I would use in labeling someone as an extremist. In closing, I would also say that we should all be very careful about labeling each other as an extremist - obviously, the label should be reserved for extraordinary behavior/beliefs. And we must also NEVER forget that freedom of speech is one of the foundational principles of this republic that we all call home!
Would "hard right" be a better term for the majority of the MAGAs? I'm sure there are plenty of extremists, because they make a lot of noise on social media about a Civil War. What I've witnessed over the years is that the two major parties are simply flip sides of the same coin. Whatever one party says or does, the other will take it, rename it, and throw it back at the other party, just like name-calling on the playground.
It used to be "Well, we can't do that, or the Black people will riot!" Now, it's become, "We'd better do this, or Trump's supporters will start a civil war!"
I'd like to see us return to a more constructive way of handling differences. That involves compromise and understanding. The little guys, the working man and woman, are hurting. The rich keep getting richer, and have their shills out snowballing the idea that it's in the best interest of the working class to let the job producers make their money. So, class warfare continues. I'd like to see a flat income tax where everybody pays exactly the same percentage, no exemptions, no write offs.
Loonie Lonie said, "No, I would say that the label of extremism requires a few more elements for most folks. What are those elements? Since you asked, I would say that things like: a fanatical devotion to an ideology or candidate...."
MY COMMENT - Lonnie, Strike Three - you are out!
You have demonstrated your dishonesty for all to see. You can dance around my simple direct question asked of you 3 times of all you want, and you can try to put up false smokescreens to deflect attention from the fact that you won't answer all you want. The Truth is YOU slandered me in your own words, and I quote you "As for your own extremism" and yet you refuse to tell me and the readers what it is that makes you label me that way. I say, you are a liar, and you have proven your statement, “I definitely do NOT share the view that all Trump voters are extremists.” is also a bold face lie.
Why would anyone believe anything you say now?
Richard
Richard,
I answered you directly three times - you just didn't like any of my answers. As I said in the post from a month ago, I did NOT start this conversation believing that you were an extremist. Sometimes "it is better to remain silent and be thought of as an extremist than to speak out and remove all doubt." Your own words here have labeled you as such. Jim shares a great deal of your political viewpoint, but I do NOT consider him to be an extremist. A great many of my Republican friends voted for Trump because they felt like they didn't have any alternative. Others supported some of his policies, but they did not support the man himself. I don't consider ANY of these folks to be extremists! YOU appropriated my evaluations of Bill, my father, and Adrian Davis and applied them to yourself! I can assure you that I did NOT have you in mind when I penned these articles. You talk about slander. You have referred to me as "Loonie" Lonnie, the "poster boy for liberal hypocrisy," an extremist, and a liar numerous times here - What do you call that?
Lonnie,
It almost seems like you are defining extremism separate from the actual beliefs. I suppose someone could be extremist in the belief that water wets most materials (not all)? If they are constantly talking about the many materials water will wet, then it seems that person is extreme in their monomania. But, then, there were many cold and calculating people that spent time with family and friends discussing many things but believing in the “Final Solution” which was an evil extremist belief.
So, the beliefs obviously matter. I know you said you don’t want to give a listing here of the conservative beliefs that you believe qualify as extremist, so I won’t ask. But, I think most would be hard pressed to provide such a list. I could make a list of extremist liberal beliefs pretty readily.
Jim,
In my humble opinion, extremism is usually manifested in both beliefs and behaviors. I really liked this statement by Frontiers of Freedom: "Political extremism is by definition problematic. Extremism prevents meaningful discussion and debate, and it precludes appropriate compromise — something that in a pluralistic society is necessary as only a tyrant can get 100% of what he wants. The rest of us must, discuss, debate, and work with others to find reasonable and workable compromises." If we think of political ideology in terms of a spectrum, we have left and right at the two extremes - and the greater the distance on either side of the center, the more extreme the position. Moreover, as the statement quoted above suggests, the more intransigent and insistent the proponent of the ideology, the more appropriate the label of extremist becomes.
Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Joseph Biden and Nancy Pelosi are NOT saviors. This is true for all people, but it MUST especially be true for Christians (we already have a Savior). Whether or not an ideology is defined as extreme is always dependent upon the spirit of the times we are discussing. What was considered mainstream in the U.S. in 1960 is very different from what is considered mainstream in 2022. Hence, what defines liberal and conservative has also shifted. The one constant in this definition is the intensity of the proponent of a particular viewpoint.
In trying to understand what distinguishes you from Richard in my mind, you need only look at your comments in this thread and compare them to his. The difference is in tone, intensity, and willingness to engage. These things mark you as a reasonable individual. Moreover, in our interactions here and in the past, I have detected a desire on your part for solutions to problems instead of pleasure in confrontation. In other words, you have appeared not to regard me as an enemy - so how can I regard you as an extremist or an enemy?
A lot of avenues to go down; I’ll just list a few and recognize you can probably connect the dots:
1) History matters. If a belief did not create extreme consequences in the past, holding a similar belief that is more nuanced in the present is almost certainly not extreme (e.g. borders, against teaching sex to kids, capitalism with safety nets, teaching against prejudice but not teaching crt).
2) In the good quote you gave, we must recognize seemingly unyielding opinions may be correct, may not be so unyielding, may be thought unyielding due to a reciprocated strong response in defense of their attacked belief; while names don’t help, Richard or others that believe they’ve been called an extremist believe they are responding in kind.
3) The media environment cuts conservatives with great regularity, so conservatives may feel a greater need to respond. Maybe.
4) Seemingly dissonant liberal stances: the “oppressive privileged”/liberal privilege more often seen, “violence against minorities and women/mostly occurs by liberal supporters, etc. can you make a similar list? I’ll put in one suggestion with a defensive tweak: pro innocent life.
Don’t let 4 cloud over 1-3. Also regarding your quote, maybe we need tougher skins rather than responding in kind. Tougher skins may open up doors an overly sensitive take on the quote will not. Btw, your being any sort of “enemy” never occurred to me.
jim
Post a Comment