Terraforming Unfinished Planets. Credit: Dalein BallardPlan B
The Ultimate Lèse-majesté Argument of Armstrongism
By Scout
“Known from eternity are to God all the works of him” (Bible Hub literal translation of Acts 15:18)
I do not believe that Herbert W. Armstrong ever set out to depreciate God. I believe he felt that certain ideas had been revealed to him and on the strength of that supposition he published those ideas as the solutions to the mysteries of the Bible. Since he ran an autocratic organization, his ideas were never subject to review. This scenario is a cliché in the history of religion. But that is my best explanation for what I am about to relate.
There is a theme that runs through Armstrongism of characterizing God as much less powerful than he actually is. The theme originates in a pre-occupation with the Old Testament description of God. In the Old Testament, God is often characterized as an anthropomorph with the inherent limitations. This was a rhetorical means of communicating with ancient peoples. It was not intended to be a realistic portrayal of the essential ontology of God. Those who believe it is a realistic portrayal eventually run into logical dilemmas.
And to shore up this errant doctrine of God, the frequent reaction is to form a redoubt comprised of many Lèse-majesté Arguments, made directly or by implication: God in his essence is reliant on a functional body, God is in spacetime, God has race, God has gender, God is not absolute but relative, God is contingent and not necessary, the image of God mentioned in Genesis 1 is physical (See end note 1), God does not know the future and, finally, we, too, can become just like God. In short, God is like a super-human and has human-like successes and setbacks just like us. He is of our category; he is just more powerful. He is just the biggest kid on the block. Such Lèse-majesté Arguments are a blatant mischaracterization of the uncreated and absolute God.
The Theatrical Script
In the pages of the Mystery of the Ages (MOA), Herbert W. Armstrong’s magnum opus, there is described a great drama. I will summarize it here. God created an unfinished Cosmos. It is full of planets in disarray. The planets needed to be terraformed. (This is an interesting conjecture on HWA’s part since the MOA was published in 1985 but the first exoplanet was discovered in 1992. The existence of exoplanets may be the only “prophecy” HWA was right about. It was probably inadvertent. It is a conclusion that probably stems from a lack of knowledge about astronomy.) God intended the angels to go throughout the Cosmos and finish the creation. HWA wrote, “So the angel potential was to take over the entire universe – to improve and finish the billions of physical planets surrounding the uncountable stars, many of which are suns (MOA, p. 90)”. But the angels rebelled and God then realized when this happened that he needed a better solution. So, he decided to create man, a reproduction of himself, and train him to do the work where the angels failed. HWA wrote, “God THEN purposed to reproduce himself, through humans, made in his image and likeness…” (MOA, p. 94, caps mine). HWA’s statement does not invoke the issue of God’s antecedent and permissive will but is a matter purely of God’s state of knowledge and foreknowledge. God took a risk and lost because he did not know what was going to happen.
Man is clearly Plan B – an afterthought. He was not on the agenda until after the angelic debacle. God did not foresee the problem and changed his plan to accommodate new circumstances. God was not in control but reactive – like a human. God is subject to risk.
The Theological Analysis
This scenario proposes a very different God from the Christian God. The Christian God is absolute and transcends our small human ideas of power and control. But in HWA’s God we have a God who can experience failure, whose plans can be wholly subverted. This putative lesser God does not know the future in contravention to what James stated in Acts 15:18. He was caught by surprise by the angelic rebellion and had to fall back and regroup. The result was the innovation of a new sentient creature called a human being that was not originally intended.
So, HWA’s timeline for this scenario is non-Biblical. Jesus was slain for us, for human sin, from the foundation of the Cosmos (Rev 13:8). God knew at the beginning there would be humans and these humans would need forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ. Whereas, HWA postulates that mankind was created as a course correction much later than the foundation of the Cosmos. Acts 15:18 tells us that God knew all of his works at the outset of the Age (See also end note 2.). This indicates that he is absolute. He will do what he will do. He is what he is. And nothing in the created realm can derail or contravene that. To argue otherwise is to engage in Lèse-majesté Argument.
Throughout this theater developed by HWA, it seems like God’s first goal is to refurbish the Cosmos. Angels did not make the cut so he created man so he could have the needed reliable workers to do this. It is not a plan about sentient creatures becoming partakers of the divine nature but about getting a remodeling job done. The theology of human salvation is just an expedience. This, of course, makes no sense because God can at any time refurbish the Cosmos in an instant by fiat. If he created by fiat, he can refurbish by fiat. If God involves sentient creatures in this refurbishing, it is to give them the “dignity of causation”, a term used by C.S. Lewis. What Lewis means is that God could do it all himself but wants man to participate in causation and thereby accords man the dignity of meaningful involvement. But the “dignity of causation” focuses on the developmental destiny of the sentient creatures, not the remodeling job as portrayed in the MOA.
So, HWA’s conjectural theater has no Biblical traction. And it is the ultimate Lèse-majesté Argument against God because if strikes at God’s ontology and his plan of salvation. This theater denies God absoluteness for the following reasons:
1. God does not know the future: He is not omniscient. Prophets cannot validly predict because God doesn’t know what is going to happen himself.
2. God can therefore be surprised: He can suffer unforeseen reversals and setbacks.
3. His plans can be foiled by his creatures: Not only can his creatures surprise him but can cancel or modify his plans.
4. God cannot achieve what is best: His original plan involving the angels was best (it was first conceived and put into action) but he had to replace it with an inferior Plan B involving human beings. God cannot bring about what is best but may have to pursue the sub-optimal.
What Difference Does It Make?
Late in the last century, I got some notes from a WCG Ministerial Conference. The notes were on file at the Roy Hammer Library at Ambassador College, Big Sandy. I was particularly interested in explanations about pre-Adamic Man made by Herman Hoeh. I read the notes and found them interesting but they did not add any additional archaeological information to what I already knew. Hoeh did say something that I readily accepted at the time but is quite alarming now. He said that God could not have created Adam without preliminary experimentation. God worked like human engineers who must create progressively more complex models in order to finally arrive at a final design. The fossilized remains of pre-Adamic man are the remains of these preliminary models. Apparently, some of his efforts were not successful because some lines of development were terminated in the fossil record. Though I was too naïve to understand it back then, this is nothing less than an assertion that God is a limited being – limited to the processes of human engineering and fabrication. He is a trial-and-error god. Lèse-majesté arguments like this, though supportive of HWA’s Plan B scenario, erode our belief in the greatness of the absolute God.
A further issue is prophecy. Millerite derived denominations in many cases have a pre-occupation with prophecy. Given this history, it is ironic that Armstrongism cancels the capability for predictive prophecy at the divine level. If God does not know the future, such as HWA describes in the MOA, how can God inspire predictive prophecy? Think for a moment. The Armstrongist Doctrine of God does not permit the existence of predictive prophecy. This is a show-stopping inconsistency inherent in the theology of Armstrongism. And the odd view that God is insufficient to sustain a prophetic capability is in accord with the general theme of Lèse-majesté in Armstrongism. This is a form of Hyper-Arminianism where God not only does not determine the future but also does not know it. And it further leaves dangling the various references to Godly foreknowledge and foreknowing contained in the New Testament.
Summation
God is great. God is absolute. He transcends all the knowledge we have of reality. He does not just know reality exhaustively, he made reality. He “speaks” or wills and things come into existence. He is not bound by time. He knows what we call the future. If he did not know the future, there would be no such thing as a prophet. The anthropomorphic language of the Old Testament, while it is rhetorically useful in conveying ideas in a way that we humans can understand, limits God in capabilities to the point that it makes untenable and illogical the proposition that God is creator of all ex nihilo. That anthropomorphic language is poetry not ontology. Mankind is not Plan B. There is no Plan B and never will be. That is just a big, old Lèse-majesté Argument. (See end note 3).
Note 1: While the image of God is often cited by HWA’ followers as a reference to the shape and form of God, this is not what HWA actually stated. He said that man was made to become, “the character image of God and also in the likeness or form and shape of God.” (Mystery of the Ages, 1985, p. 102) The term “character” is broad in its scope and can refer to many attributes. While the idea of the image of God as form or shape conflicts with Christian belief, the idea of character may not, depending on how it is defined.
Note 2: Though Acts 15:18 may be translated literally as, “Known from eternity are to God all the works of him”, the word for eternity in Greek is “aionos”. This may be also translated as “age”. David B. Hart in his New Testament translation renders this phrase as “known from an age ago”. In any case, it is a clear statement that God has foreknowledge of all his activities no matter what timeframe is considered - activities that for us from our perspective in time would be future.
Note 3: Many times, Armstrongists will read material like this that exalts God and will term it “atheistic”. How this illogical idea can be asserted is a “mystery of the ages”.
I do not believe that Herbert W. Armstrong ever set out to depreciate God.
ReplyDeleteThat might be true considering his Talmudic approach to how he treated Dorothy.
Great post. I wrote about this for CGI's "International News" several years ago, and again in 2014 on my own blog:
ReplyDeletehttps://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2014/02/part-i-of-god-is-not-working-on-plan-b.html
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2014/02/part-ii-of-god-is-not-working-on-plan-b.html
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2014/02/part-iii-of-god-is-not-working-on-plan-b.html
Plan B makes more sense than pretty much any alternative theory.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 8:25:00 PM PST,
ReplyDeleteThe first two chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes very plain that the angels NEVER had ANY part of man's potential - that they were created to serve as God's tools to help us. The notion that humans were created because of the failure of angels is absurd! If you believe Scripture, only one third of them rebelled. So, how was it fair/just to deprive the other two thirds of their potential? That doesn't make much sense to me!
HWA's 1975 prediction was an attempt to pressure Christ's premature return in order to cover up the failure of Warsaw pact communism. Which means that HWA viewed God as a souped-up human that he could manipulate.
ReplyDeleteBtw, HWA, like a good commie, didn't care that billions of people didn't deserve to die in 1975. And this from the man whose mantra was "outgoing concern" toward others.
Job 15:15 states that God doesn't even trust His angels. One third followed Satan and the remaining two thirds lacks sterling character. Mankind had to be plan B otherwise there would not be a 14 billion year gap between the creation of the universe and the creation of man, together with the all new vegetation and creatures.
ReplyDeleteAnd the HWA god was in constant need of MONEY, ever increasing amounts of MONEY, and please don't question how your superiors handle the MONEY or how well they live.
ReplyDeleteThe Work needs to buy an IBM Mainframe computer to work more efficiently and SPY ON YOU, the Worker-bees, while these Drones live magnificently!
All your 'sins' and slip-ups will go on your very own computer DOSSIER for quick reference - and chuckles by Ministers, Deacons, and their gossiping wives.
8:25 wrote, "Plan B makes more sense than pretty much any alternative theory."
ReplyDeleteYou are missing the point. The fact that there is a Plan B at all in HWA's theology indicates that he got the Doctrine of God wrong. God does not experience defeat. He does not fall back and regroup. HWA’s Plan B may sound operationally effective but it bears dire theological implications.
Some would argue that God’s conferring of free will on humans must necessarily limit his sovereignty. He must now permit and accommodate the free will of created sentient beings. And this means that events may go differently from what God expects and he has to make course corrections. This theory is based on the idea that humans have libertarian free will – that they may choose certain alternatives and reject others that could have been chosen. I do not believe this theory of free will has traction although it is widely accepted in Christianity. C.S. Lewis believed that Hell is a prison whose doors are locked from the inside – that the inmates, ceteris paribus, have chosen to be there. While I highly respect Lewis, I do not agree with him on this point.
We do not have unlimited libertarian free will. We have compatibilist free will. Our freedoms operate compatibly with God’s foreordained purposes. The fact that we are made in the Image of God slants our freedoms from the moment of our origin. Our nature is constructed so that the being and purposes of God are intelligible to us. This alone circumscribes our freedom – without considering the continuous sustaining interventions of God. Moreover, God can orchestrate circumstances to achieve his purposes without violating the boundaries of our free will.
I will admit, what I have written raises questions. Does the future exist even though we cannot see it? And what of theodicy? If God knows the future could he not have influenced it to move in a more positive direction – away from evil? Why in chapter 6 of Genesis is he is already having to wipe out mankind. I have theories about this but I am not sure that Christianity has adopted a single dogma on these topics. What I do know is that HWA’s view on this involves a diminishing of God.
Scout
The unknown factors that we can only speculate on include whether or not there is a thing called "Free Will" , and how does God exist in "Space/Time".
ReplyDeleteWithout those and many others, we are only guessing about the nature of God.
4:47 wrote, "Job 15:15 states that God doesn't even trust His angels."
ReplyDeleteDo you think that humans will be perfect at the end of life? We have entered into salvation because of grace not because of our attained perfection. The Angels were not perfect and neither are we. And what of the two thirds of angels that did not sin. Are they relegated to a punitive state because one third did sin? Where does it say they lack "sterling character."
4:47 also wrote, "Mankind had to be plan B otherwise there would not be a 14 billion year gap between the creation of the universe and the creation of man, together with the all new vegetation and creatures."
The time element, flora and fauna are irrelevant. If you are looking for some marker in time, Jesus was slain from the foundation of the Cosmos. This means the creation of man was understood at the beginning, before the 14 billion year gap. There was no Plan B.
Scout
The biggest problem in the world right now by far is the risk of a global war caused by what is happening in Gaza. It is no coincidence that Gaza is part of the "Holy Land". All this hate and bloodshead resulting from the promise YHWH supposedly made but could not keep about giving the land to the Jews. Yet people still think the Bible is a precious book and live their lives by it. The irresponsible reckless bullheadedness needs to end before we all get nuked. All of you Bible clowns need to grow up and give up your delusions and sanctimonious fake scholarship debating ancient propaganda. THAT is your responsibility. Do it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:25:00 AM PST,
ReplyDeleteWhile Fundamentalism is both reckless and bullheaded, dismissing and/or ignoring the Judeo-Christian Scriptures and the many roles which it has played in the Western world is equally reckless and bullheaded. You mentioned the situation between the Palestinians and Jews, and that horrible mess can never begin to be sorted out without understanding the ethnic, religious, and political background which gave rise to it. Whether you believe in Scripture or agree with the motivations of these people, these are factors which cannot simply be swept aside as the meaningless interferences/intrusions/relicts of a superstitious past. That would be both unwise and disastrous.
Scout you ask - 'If God does not know the future, how can God inspire predictive prophecy?'
ReplyDeleteThe answer is - very easily.
You very clearly are a follower of 'Closed Theology', so this seems to blind you to the obvious.
Maybe check out 'Open Theology'. It has many advocates, with no connection to HWA, although HWA was suggesting a form of open theology, but maybe without realising it.
Basically it is very simple. With God's knowledge, experience and understanding He pretty well knows how things will turn out anyway. However, being all powerful God can also intervene on occasion, if necessary, to ensure that prophecies and other events turn out exactly the way God wants.
So no problem at all for an all powerful God.
If this wasn't the case, then us humans are nothing but robots, preordained to go about our lives in exactly the way God has preordained.
The Bible itself shows 'open theology'.
Tonto 7:30 wrote, "The unknown factors that we can only speculate on include whether or not there is a thing called "Free Will" , and how does God exist in "Space/Time"
ReplyDeleteCalvinists do not believe free will actually exists except as a degenerate case. They believe that God in his sovereignty has pre-determined everything. The degenerate case occurs when a person decides to do something that God has already pre-determined that the person will do. In this case the person might be though of as exercising free will.
Arminians believe that there is such a thing as free will. Armstrongism falls into the Arminian category. The traditional objection that Arminians raise to the Calvinist belief in pre-determinism is that the Calvinists have made God the author of sin. I believe there is free will, within bounds, because the Bible is full of free will language. I do not believe God would misrepresent reality.
I do not think God exists in spacetime, It is not likely he exists inside something he created. Spacetime isn't a container he made for himself. He transcends spacetime but is also immanent in spacetime. In fact, Acts 17:28 states, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being...". I think, based on this, it is more likely that the Cosmos with its implementation of spacetime exists within God. God is not bound by size. He may well be infinite. Size is a characteristic of the relative universe not God's absolute realm. Perhaps, to God, the Cosmos is microscopic.
You may treat these observations as speculative but they're probably not. There is a logic here that stems from scripture.
Scout
freewill is a horrible thing & maybe humans need to be told what to do instead of left to choose
Deletelike whether to use damn cigarettes or not
if the scene in "Sophie's Choice" where Meryl Streep was granted opportunity of freewill to choose which of her children the guard would allow to live, was based on any true story somewhere, then that shows freewill is flawed & not as useful as all my smug church friends keep telling me year after year
if an angel sees a vicious fiend approaching JonBenet Ramsey, I guess the angel had freewill to choose whether to try or beg to intervene & stop the fiend, or to just watch & let the tragedy happen
how well would a classroom of students conduct the day without any teacher making some decisions for them
why do most bible students think freewll is the best way for God to find true obedience...when so many innocent victims suffer under the big freewill lesson laid before a knucklehead bully
the victims don't get much freewill
“ Lèse-majesté (/ˌlɛzˌmæʒɛsˈteɪ/[1]) or lese-majesty (/ˌliːz ˈmædʒɪsti/)[2] is an offence or defamation against the dignity of a ruling head of state (traditionally a monarch but now more often a president) or of the state itself. The English name for this crime is a modernised borrowing from the medieval French, where the phrase meant "a crime against The Crown". In classical Latin laesa māiestās meant "hurt or violated majesty" (originally with reference to the majesty of the sovereign people, in post-classical Latin also of the monarch).[3]”
ReplyDeleteScout, I love your rhetoric. Your writing is very powerful in attacking your personal INTERPRETATION of what HWA said or wrote. That is you interpret and then claim your interpretation is what he meant.
Another thing you are good at is to take a verse from the Bible and claim it is Armstrongism, because HWA quoted it. That frankly is deceptive and dishonest.
So, a verse from the Bible describes a body part of Elohim. HWA finds it and quotes it accurately and claims the Bible, the inspired word of Elohim, clearly says Elohim has that body part. Then Scout claims that cannot be true and that that is just Armstrongism in action. In other words what Scout is actually claiming is that Elohim Who says in His Word, DO NOT LIE, is a LIAR.
Scout then immediately claims, to cover what he is really claiming, that you and I, and HWA, are/was too dumb to understand that this is just an anthromtoorphism to help dumb people understand spiritual concepts. Only Scout, Lonnie, etal grasp this strictly carnal human philosophy, made up by those who are not subject to the law, neither indeed can be. And, only their vain human created philosophy can be trusted to explain the Bible, not , oh no it can’t be, yep, you got it: Armstrongism. Which doesn’t exist, it’s just a labeling by biased disgruntled antagonists who couldn’t couldn’t handle spiritual discipline on a personal level.
Much more could be said, but for now, please have a nice day.
Anon 2:19:00 PM PST
ReplyDelete‘made up by those who are not subject to the law’….
Well well well………
I could grace thy epistle with a comment of my own. But I am simply too tired and weary.
I don’t doubt that Scout, Lonnie and others would be more than capable of replying to thy post here within.
This only I want to learn from you. Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Having begun in the Spirit are you now being made perfect by the law, or by faith?
You see I don’t know by what you mean when you ‘quote’ ‘law’ as mentioned above.
Are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
If so Christ died in vain.
Please elaborate, your comments are vague and at loggerheads with ‘divine writ’…….
Questeruk
ReplyDeleteI know what you are talking about as Open Theism. Clark Pinnock was an advocate of this view. And you are right. I am not a proponent of open theism and tend to hold with semi-closed future. My view is predicated on the following:
1. God does not exist in time. He knows past, present and future all at once.
2. Some parts of the future are determined and some are not. The undetermined parts are where we have some compatibalist free will.
3. For those undetermined parts, God still knows what is going to happen based on his assessment of circumstances and his influence. He can slant events and human will to favor his purposes.
What I see as an unanswered question is whether the future has an objective existence or a subjective existence. In the former we could get in a time machine and visit the future and see what is going on. In the latter, the future exists only in the mind of God and he will instantiate it as our time progresses. In either case, the future exists and is known to God but in our realm it does not come into existence until God makes it. I think the latter is more plausible.
I think for HWA, God was an anthopomorph and he was related to time in the same way as human beings are. God was just another actor among a population of created actors. Too bad we can't ask him.
Scout
2:19 wrote, "That is you interpret and then claim your interpretation is what he (HWA) meant."
ReplyDeleteI would be happy to have someone explain what HWA actually meant. Nobody has ever written "What HWA meant when he said that is ..."
2:19 also wrote, " HWA finds it and quotes it accurately and claims the Bible, the inspired word of Elohim, clearly says Elohim has that body part...In other words what Scout is actually claiming is that Elohim Who says in His Word, DO NOT LIE, is a LIAR.
God may appear as he wishes. This is called a theophany. The anthropmorphic language of the Old Testament constitutes a literary theophany of God. He may appear in human form or as a whirlwind or as a pillar of fire. The issue is whether God in his essence has a form not whether he can appear in theophany. HWA asserts that God in his essence has a human form. That is not logical, hence, not true. Think about it. If this still seems untrue, read the following and then come back to me with some questions and I will try to answer.
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-transcendence-of-god-and.html
Scout
2:19 wrote, "Only Scout, Lonnie, etal grasp this strictly carnal human philosophy, made up by those who are not subject to the law, neither indeed can be."
ReplyDeleteWhat I have written is in the main standard Christianity so millions of people believe this. Only a small, and dwindling, number of apocalyptic Millerites believe otherwise. I doubt that anyone else in the Christian Movement has diminished God, albeit through honest misunderstanding, as much as HWA and his followers.
Scout
God has an image. And no, the anthropomorphic language argument won't fly: God has an image. Believe your Bible - Gen 1:26, 27.
ReplyDeleteGod has an image. And no, the anthropomorphic language argument won't fly: God has an image. Believe your Bible - Gen 1:26, 27.
ReplyDeleteYou see I don’t know by what you mean when you ‘quote’ ‘law’ as mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteAre you now being made perfect by the flesh?
If so Christ died in vain.
Please elaborate, your comments are vague and at loggerheads with ‘divine writ’…….
Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:14:00 PM PST
================
Try reading the Bible on occasion.
Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (Romans 8:7, KJPCE)
4:25
ReplyDeleteBoth the terms "image" and "likeness" can also simply mean resemblance without reference to form or shape. The Jewish Study Bible says this of the image of God in Genesis 1:
"In the ancient Near East, the king was often said to be in the "image" of God and thus to act in divine authority. So here, the creation of humanity in God's image and likeness carries with it a commission to rule over the animal kingdom." (see Psalm 8:4-9)
The reason why we know that it is not the physical form that is being referred to is because both male and female were made in the image of God. This would make God a hermaphrodite. This statement is in no way qualified so as to make fine distinctions. It literally says both men and women are created in the image of God. Cross check it with the first few verses of Genesis 5. We also have this statement in the Good News Magazine of November, 1967: "God always considered men and women equally "in his image.""
Scout
John 5:37
ReplyDeleteAnd the Father who sent Me, He has testified about Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
The Father has a form, and a voice.
Anon 5:55:00 PM PST
ReplyDelete‘Try reading the Bible on occasion’….
From what I discern the post @ 3:14:00 PM PST does indeed ‘read’ and quote from the scripture.
Please look at Galatian's and see for oneself.
The post quotes Galatians rather extensively.
Are you familiar with the Bible?
Then surely you would have acknowledged this without the ‘try reading the Bible on occasion’.
Perhaps the correspondent has read the Bible and it is you yourself that has been found wanting.
If you did indeed post at 2:19:00 PM PST you still need to explain your term of ‘law’ for your use of this expression leaves one with concern.
6:50 wrote, "The Father has a form, and a voice."
ReplyDeleteThis is going to become repetitive. The question is not whether God has a form or voice. The question is whether he has a form or voice in his EXISTENTIAL ESSENCE!
He can manifest himself as he wishes. He can be a burning bush, a pillar of fire, a whirlwind, a still small voice, a storm or he can appear in human form. But Jesus says God is spirit and he compares spirit to the wind - it has force but you can't see it because it has no form or shape.
It is worthwhile to read this:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-transcendence-of-god-and.html
Scout
I don't see the phrase "existential essence" anywhere in the Bible. That is a man-made term from human philosophy. It sounds like a lot of folks on this site are really deep thinking philosophers. You can't be a true Christian and also a philosopher, you can only be one or the other. Apparently being in the WCG turned a lot of folks into disillusioned and very deep thinking philosophers. I'm guessing you weren't philosophers to begin with else why get involved with Armstrong in the first place? Answer: "We thought we found in the WCG the "answer", but ultimately it wasn't the "answer" we were looking for. So we went back to traditional Christianity from whence we came, sadder but wiser, realizing that traditional Christianity had the answers all along, we just didn't realize it back then. So HWA actually did us a favor, he helped us realize that we had it right in the first place!" Did I get that about right? Correct me if I'm wrong.
DeleteIf you did indeed post at 2:19:00 PM PST you still need to explain your term of ‘law’ for your use of this expression leaves one with concern.
ReplyDeleteFriday, November 17, 2023 at 7:18:00 PM PST
==============
I think it is clear what Paul wrote in Romans 8. The CARNAL mind is not subject to….
Oh, Paul also wrote Galatians, and is also quite clear there.
There is no need for me to explain “my term” the law. Let Paul explain since I was quoting him, not myself.
ReplyDeleteThe wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8, KJPCE
One can hear the wind, and see its results, but the human eye cannot see it. It is invisible to the human , just as spirit is. The verse does not say the Father ,composed of spirit, does not have a form. It is telling us spirit is invisible, so we cannot see Him.
So, He informed of us of His form by making us in His form and image. He is NOT in the form of mankind, we are in Elohim’s form. Of course critics always say that man made G-d in man’s form. Silly nonsense.
I agree, and it amazes me that so many people cannot believe that God has a form and shape as the Bible clearly says in many, many places. These people say this cannot possibly mean what it says, it means instead that God is a gigantic, formless blob who disingenuously describes himself as having a body because the humans he created are complete idiots who can't comprehend a gigantic, invisible formless blob. If a gigantic, invisible formless blob tells me he doesn't have a body I can accept that, but if he tells me I'm too stupid to comprehend a gigantic, invisible, formless blob and falsely describes himself as having body parts then I feel he has insulted my intelligence. If God is a spiritual blob with no form or shape, then why didn't he make us as physical blobs with no form or shape? Where did he come up with the idea of a human body in the first place if he doesn't have a body himself? Did he think we wouldn't be happy being physical blobs? I could be happy as a physical blob. Why not?
Delete2Kings 6:17
ReplyDeleteAnd Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
The young man saw spirit chariots, spirit horses. They had forms.
Armstrongism has diminished God to a being who is changed by the outcomes produced by his creation.
ReplyDeleteAmstrong has diminished Jesus to be a savior who needs humans to do all the work for their salvation.
Armstrongism has diminished the Holy Spirit to be a vague energy.
9:25 wrote, "The verse does not say the Father (is) composed of spirit, does not have a form."
ReplyDeleteYou have to put a couple of verses together which I did not do for you in my comment:
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (NRSV, John 4:24)
"The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So, it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (NRSV, John 3:8)
Jesus is saying in the second cited verse that spirit is not discernible to the eye. In context, Jesus is speaking specifically of those who receive the spirit and later would be termed Christians.
We can wrangle over these two scriptures but the central reason why God does not have a three-dimensional human body in his essence is that it is illogical. It just does not make sense. And the references made in the OT to God having a body are metaphorical. And for this there is scriptural support.
For instance, when Paul addressed the crowd on Mars Hill, he said in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being". It is much more plausible that God is infinite and the Cosmos, our environment for living, exists within him. Paul gives us this tantalizing clue but does not expand on it. Christianity recognizes this relationship between God and the Cosmos without using the preposition “within”. The use of spatial prepositions in regard to God is almost always metaphor. Christianity instead says that God is immanent in the Cosmos but also transcends the Cosmos. Transcendence and Immanence support the idea that God is absolute in his presence – beyond the omnipresence which is based in the experiential human concept of locality that encompasses all conceivable locations.
(Continued)
(Continuation)
ReplyDeleteArmstrongism, a near as I can tell, does not assert that God transcends the Cosmos. From the pulpit, I have heard that God lives in the “sides of the north” – somewhere in the northern sky. GTA stated that if you had a rocket ship and enough time you could fly to where God lives. That is, God lives inside the Cosmos like the rest of us – an anthropomorphic view. I will put forward two propositions that I believe are asserted by Armstrongism about God. I believe these propositions are in error. I would love to have an Armstrongist explain why these propositions are thought to be valid:
1. When God created the Universe, time and space were already in existence. What God did by his creative act in Genesis was populate the space of the Cosmos with matter, energy and sentient beings.
2. God himself lives in time and space. God is immanent but not transcendent. If you have a body with shape and form it has to extend into some kind of dimensional space. If shape is an attribute of God’s essence, that is from eternity, where did space come from? If it is eternal, God could not have created it. Can we then say that God is creator of all as the Bible asserts?
In fact, we know that space and time are both physical properties of the universe and interact with gravity. Space was created. It came into existence during the inflationary state after the Big Bang. The Big Bang was not an explosion like a firecracker that flung things into space. Space itself began to expand. There is much more but time does not permit.
Scout
2:07 wrote, "I don't see the phrase "existential essence" anywhere in the Bible."
ReplyDeleteYou can't find the term "first tithe" in the Bible either but my guess is that you hear it and use it all the time. Everything has an existential essence. What you can do is write me an essay and post it on this blog that explains how God does not have and existential essence.
2:07 also wrote, "You can't be a true Christian and also a philosopher, you can only be one or the other."
I don't want to be harsh but that is just malarkey. Your statement is an exaltation of ignorance. It is an artless dodge intended to excuse yourself from thinking. You instead let "Little Booklet Theology" do your thinking for you.
Scout
You have to be careful with the "it's not specifically mentioned in the Bible but that doesn't mean it's not there" narrative. Very careful. Yes, first tithe isn't mentioned but be careful about using something like that to cover all the bases. Paul warned about being seduced by vain philosophy. Does he mean it's okay to be seduced by "good" philosophy? I think you're confusing philosophy with intelligence, they don't mean the same thing. You can be an intelligent Christian without being a self styled philosopher, yes it is actually possible. The farther you go into philosophy the farther you go into creating God in your own image, which is what philosophy is all about. That's why Paul warned against philosophy.
DeleteMark 16:12 NASB
ReplyDelete12 Now after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country.
Fascinating. Jesus appeared, a spirit being by this time, in a different form. How different? It had to be like a human form; otherwise the "two of them" would have been frightened, run away??
12:58 wrote, "The young man saw spirit chariots, spirit horses. They had forms."
ReplyDeleteThe young man may have seen a vision. We can't say. John of Patmos saw all kinds of visions in the book of Revelation that had form and were entirely symbolic - beasts that symbolized nations. It is entirely possible that God uses some kind of durable substance to make things for his creatures, parallel to matter and energy. I would balk at asserting that these things are "spirit" in the sense of pneuma. God is pneuma. We as human beings are implemented with sarx, psuche and pneuma. Nowhere in the bible does it assert that God makes objects out of pneuma.
Scout
Well, 2:07, you are familiar with some intellectual terminology, but, you fail to realize that Armstrongism is itself a philosophy based on the interpretations of a man named Herbert W. Armstrong. Ultimately, you fall back on your binary thinking processes to arrive at the usual pedestrian "either-or" dilemma. You reduced our choices to "either a Christian, or a philosopher", as if those were the only two paths in the universe, and mutually exclusive as opposed to complimentary to one another.
ReplyDeleteLanguage is man-made. Knowledge has accumulated with the tenure of the human race, and made great leaps forward about ten thousand years ago when man became able to speak and record his thoughts and thus accumulate knowledge. The Bible was written during the times of ignorant goat herders, yet is still used as a source of wisdom in our current era of rocket science. Because the Bible we have today was filtered through King James's translators, later words from the English language such as "existential" were not yet known to them, or to William Shakespeare for that matter, so of course are not in the Bible or Sir William's plays.. Many people hear the word "existential" and automatically associate it with Sartre, Nietzsche, or Camus, but the word has meanings apart from the philosophy of Existentialism. Who knows? There may be people out there who hear that global climate change is an existential threat, and wonder what Soren Kierkegaard would think of that!
There are those greater and wiser than myself who have written that humanity would not have been capable of comprehending and absorbing the teachings of Jesus Christ had not the great philosophers preceded Him. I believe there is much merit to that.
Cory said, "These people say this cannot possibly mean what it says, it means instead that God is a gigantic, formless blob who disingenuously describes himself as having a body because the humans he created are complete idiots who can't comprehend a gigantic, invisible formless blob."
ReplyDeleteYou demonstrate the problem in what you have written. You say that if God does not have a human body he must be "a gigantic, formless blob." A big formless blob is just another item in the category of physical bodies. There is not category difference for your comparison.
In fact, God is incomparable in his existential state to anything that we know. He is uncreated and absolute. That is not a part of the physical Cosmos. That is a category that we know almost nothing about. And no doubt it encompasses many attributes that you and I will never, ever understand though we live for eternity.
It is quite common for the Armstrongist head to explode when the Armstrongist is confronted with the truth that God is not the little contained God that HWA taught but rather the absolute God of Christianity. Some will even trade good for evil by labelling the exaltation of God, incredibly, as atheistic. It arouses anger, not because they want to depreciate God, but because they do not want HWA, and by extension, themselves to be wrong.
Scout
Actually, by "blob" I meant basically what you are saying, with tongue in cheek. A great big incomprehensible nothing/something/whatever that we have no hope of ever comprehending. If the Bible is God's "revelation" to mankind, how can God reveal anything if he/it/whatever is incomprehensible to us? Why would you believe and put trust in "revelation" from someone/something/whatever that you can't comprehend? Would you say I'm very small minded and need to grow a bigger brain? I can handle the truth, lay it on me.
DeleteI don't know how to take all of this in! You'd think that Gerald Waterhouse might have had a more lasting influence on the imagination of Armstrongites! Based on some of the comments here, my recommendation would be that since it's too cold to go to the lake on the sabbath, why not go to the library and check out the original Star Trek DVD's? It will stimulate your imagination and assist you in your conceptualizations of God.
ReplyDeleteYou know what's hilarious? The way that HWA defined the Holy Spirit pretty much already matches the concept of God without a body. They'd understand completely if only they used His proper pronouns instead of "It". Not that big of a leap, really.
Cory 11:51
ReplyDeleteThe argument that something isn't in the Bible is a favorite among Armstrongist. The Trinity isn't in the Bible for instance. Yet there are scriptures that support the doctrine of the Trinity. The idea that something is not in the Bible is a facetious argument. It is predicated on the belief that the Bible closes out knowledge whereas the Bible launches knowledge. The Bible as the closure of knowledge is just a dodge for those unwilling to get an education. So I don't seee being cautious an careful, as you melodramtically warn, has much significance.
And you musings about philosphy are highly idiosyncratic. But very much like some of the things I have heard from the Armstrongist pulpit.
Scout
12:02
ReplyDeleteThere is the full knowledge of God and then there is a working knowledge of God. I believe we will forever be confined to the latter. Doesn't mean that we can't live a full life. Just means that there are things that you will not be able to comprehend because you are a limited being and God is not. I know that you were taught that God is not the great and you might even one day be nearly as great as he is. I was taught that. And it is totally and absurdly false. You are not even in the same category as God and never will be. He will always be limitless and you will always be limited.
God created us in his image. I believe the Imago Dei is what makes God intelligible to us. Humankind's first charter was management of the fauna and flora of the earth. But implicitly that means that God has given us an intelligible vocation that he ordained to function inside a Cosmos that is intelligible to use. God and his creation are intelligible - because in certain critical ways he made us to see things as he sees them. We can appreciate the beauty of a sunset because he does. Animals do not.
Scout
1980s NO2HWA fails to understand that vast majorities of baptised members with God's Holy spirit ignored and didn't bother with Mystery of the Ages.
ReplyDeleteIt was seem behind closed doors as an very elderly man's ego trip. Even Aaron Dean admitted Herbert never even was capable of finishing the book and has claimed for decades that he wrote parts of Mystery of the Ages. Garner Ted used to mock 'it's a Mystery who wrote MOA book'
Only Gerald Flurry lached onto MOA as a holy relic but he also latches onto moss ridden rocks so that tells you all you need to know.
Majoring in the minors NO2HWA again !!!!
10:21 wrote, "freewill is a horrible thing & maybe humans need to be told what to do instead of left to choose"
ReplyDeleteThis off topic but here goes.
Free will does not exist and has never existed. Only God is truly free and that is because he is absolute. His created sentient beings have all come into existence with a profile of attributes that slants their will in certain directions. Then over the course of their lives they collect information and have experiences that further determine how they analyze and form conclusions. Humans do have a capacity to choose among alternatives at times. But the option space is limited by an enormous array of natural conditions some of which are unique to the person making the choice. Armstrongists speak of “free moral agency”. But the idea of libertarian free will is a myth – a philosophical ideal that does not map into reality.
Yet, man nevertheless within defined circumstances has the ability to choose between good and evil. But this is not trivial. Humans are made in the image of God and one of the characteristics as a consequence that we all have is that we seek what is Good – Good with a capital “G” that represents all that is right and beneficial in theory and practice, in abstraction and concreteness. The problem is that humans, subject to many influences, do not always know what Good is. Stalin thought, in some twisted way, that he was doing Good during his regime. He was not just doing things at random. He thought that he was achieving some purpose that he thought was Good based on his information acquisition and life experience. Smokers decided to smoke originally because they decided that it would lead to Good for them somehow. (This observation would exclude people with a pathological psychology who do bizarre things that have no logical connection to any meaningful context or purpose).
A popular notion in Christianity is that people choose to go to Hell. C.S. Lewis claimed that Hell is a prison locked from the inside and people choose to be there. The idea is that God will not violate a person’s free will. God will permit people their dignity and let them choose whether they want Paradise or Hell. This is ornamented with such ideas that love must be freely given in order to be love. The problem is that the free will that must enter into this calculation does not exist. We are all biased and choosing Hell is a fiction.
We can all be given a sound mind that seeks Good in the right way with the right objectives. And this is through Jesus living in us through the Holy Spirit. This grants us freedom from folly and evil but it is not the same thing as libertarian free will. In fact, free will, with all of its downside risks, is not a burden that we can constructively bear.
Scout
“ 1980s NO2HWA fails to understand that vast majorities of baptised members with God's Holy spirit ignored and didn't bother with Mystery of the Ages.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t know which alien dimension you are posting from, but I have not commented or posted anything on this thread here. But I will say MOA was the most boring book the church ever published. It’s right up there next to the Incredible Human Potential book. Or, I should say, at the bottom of the pile of useless theological books.
May be a better title to MOA: Mystery, Babylon the Great
ReplyDelete"May be a better title to MOA: Mystery, Babylon the Great"
ReplyDeleteThe proper location for MOA is where it currently rests...at the bottom of the Glendale dump along with tens of thousands of other church publications. I helped load them on the truck that took them to the dump. Those were fun times!
How easily the wolves gather to attack the weak, sick or dead. Not an upbeat or inspiring thought among them. Negative thinking creates negative people. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
ReplyDeleteNot a single positive alternative offered up either. Virtually all self improvement books, articles, etc. teach one must become positive in thinking. But humans love slop more than overcoming negative self.
The winter cold is on the way, enjoy it.
12:49 wrote, "Not an upbeat or inspiring thought among them."
ReplyDeleteThe essay I wrote was an exaltation of God and a rebuke of those who systematically depreciate God. I think that rates as upbeat (How many times I have heard Armstrongist ministers use that term ...) or inspiring. But then again, Armstrongists can read something that exalts God and deem it to be atheistic or pagan. Go figure.
Scout
Scout wrote:
ReplyDelete"What I have written is in the main standard Christianity so millions of people believe this. Only a small, and dwindling, number of apocalyptic Millerites believe otherwise. I doubt that anyone else in the Christian Movement has diminished God, albeit through honest misunderstanding, as much as HWA and his followers.
Scout"
I guess you mean the millions that come from the likes of this comment. "Many mainline denominations, however, are spiritually dead or close to it." (P. 4, Smacked by The Truth. By David Bybee.)
Or, perhaps this quote from the same mainstream Christian pastor. "What was long held as foundational in Judeo-Christian culture is increasingly being displaced by pseudo-spirituality and secularism. The solid foundation of the past has been replaced by a sinking, fragmented foundation - a plethora of opinions, views, PHILOSOPHIES and half-baked ideas. The Bible sums up the current situation well: "Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding NONSENSE that come from HUMAN THINKING and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from (Yahshua Anointed)" (Colossians 2:8 NLT).
Quote from same book/author, p.6 Emphasis mine.
Another quote from page 7. "As Marcel looked out at the spiritual wasteland that is the European church he wondered why people in the U.S. went to church at all."
With the above in mind from a pastor of mainstream Christianity, and not HWA or any church from the Worldwide splinters, or ministry, we can see why Lonnie, Scout, and others here have no positive alternative for those they claim they are trying to help.
It seems their kicks come frankly from the thrill of being able to make fun of, and criticize those who can't answer their philosophical diatribes. Why, don't cha know, they are too dumb to answer us.
Negativity breeds negativity. Hmmm? Wonder what positive uplifting encouragement and kindness breeds?
Oh, the book's author is a Presbyterian pastor. And, don't think he is the only one that criticizes the bigger problem in all of Christianity compared to the insignificant size of all the Worldwide splinters put together. There are bigger problems to be solved for millions of people, not just for a few hundred. Think BIG!
Plus, just think what would happen if all those splinter groups started posting real Bible answers here. That is, the positive uplifting things to be learned from Scripture. And, gave complete explanations of what is taught in the Bible.
Oh boy, happy days are here again.... if only!
Yeah. I'll buy into that. I, too, have wondered what would happen if the splinter groups actually went through a complete metamorphosis and started teaching and posting real Bible answers rather than repeating the failed teachings and theories of Herbert W. Armstrong.
ReplyDeleteDon't expect truth from these splinters. Armstrongism as a brand has been burned, and Banned exposes the how and the why. What you call negativity is perceived as great news and tremendous positivity by those fortunate enough to be escaping the toxic cults we call the ACOGs. It's up to those leaving to figure things out and to discover better sources and better paths. If we funneled people towards another group and alleged that that group had the solutions, we would lose our neutrality and therefore our credibility. We would reduce ourselves to being nothing more than shills for yet another group run by collectors of people. (and, Ahem! Tithes as well!)
Also, I can't help but comment on the fact that the splinter groups have their own sites and blogs at which they make their cases for their teachings. And, they do the proof-texting thingie with their scriptures. Obviously you don't identify with our research and points of view here. Perhaps Banned isn't the right blog for you. You'll most likely find conditions that meet your own personal wish list at one or all of the splinter groups' blogs. Or you can keep on hanging with us, and sooner or later you'll learn something that makes such great sense that it completely changes your point of view. That's been known to happen and not just a few times. Come to think about it, you're already sooo defensive. Seems like you might already have some cognitive dissonance going on. Actually, I just changed my mind. I hope you do stick around!
3:12 just wrote:
ReplyDelete“ Actually, I just changed my mind. I hope you do stick around!
Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 3:12:00 PM PST”
Of course you do. Your inner self, the subconscious if you will heard a clear bell ring. Thanks for listening to it. More to come.
3:12 wrote:
ReplyDelete"Perhaps Banned isn't the right blog for you. You'll most likely find conditions that meet your own personal wish list at one or all of the splinter groups' blogs. Or you can keep on hanging with us, and sooner or later you'll learn something that makes such great sense that it completely changes your point of view. That's been known to happen and not just a few times. Come to think about it, you're already sooo defensive. Seems like you might already have some cognitive dissonance going on. Actually, I just changed my mind. I hope you do stick around!"
The difference between us and the other COG sites is that we allow questions. You will never find that on any of the COG blogs or websites. Imagine asking Bob Thiel a question or daring to question his teachings...homeopathic fury would erupt. Other than the regular anti-semites and Hitler being a "nice guy" crowd that tries and posts here we have a pretty good back-and-forth with most who decide to engage. Even UCG, the more liberal of the COG's highly regulates comments on their FB and other sites. LCG doesn't allow comments, and Flurry and Dave don't. Far too many in the COG have had it ingrained in them that to ask questions means a lack of faith. Every question should lead to more questions producing an endless fascinating journey of faithful experience.
3:38 wrote:
ReplyDelete“ Every question should lead to more questions producing an endless fascinating journey of faithful experience.
Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 3:38:00 PM PST”
That’s what I was talking about.
My statement about those in splinter groups was more about individual members, not the “leaders”, posting positive things here, and explaining clearly the errors presented here that are not true when it comes to beliefs.
Which brings up my first question. How explicit can the questions be before you refuse them being posted.?For instance, why did you post a picture of people watching HWA, and then post your GUESSES about what they were thinking as if your guesses were fact? Isn’t that pure and simple deception?
"Which brings up my first question. How explicit can the questions be before you refuse them being posted.?For instance, why did you post a picture of people watching HWA, and then post your GUESSES about what they were thinking as if your guesses were fact? Isn’t that pure and simple deception?"
ReplyDeleteSeriously dude, is that all you have to bring to the table? Complaining about a picture that has NOTHING to do with what is posted here?
I'm assuming he or she is referring to the picture in the blog entry for Wed. Sept 20, 2023? It appears to be of HWA leading some sort of tour of the grounds of one of the campuses, most likely Bricket Wood, but possibly Pasadena. It's a difficult one to date by the clothing styles, because church members wore the styles of the 1940s right into the early 1970s.
ReplyDeleteSatire: The use of humor, irony, sarcasm, or ridicule to criticize something or someone. Public figures, such as politicians, are often the object of satire, but satirists can take aim at other targets as well, from societal conventions to government policies. Satire is an entertaining form of social commentary.
What planet are you from, 4:05? Even the most naive members of the old Radio Church of God knew about satire back in the day if for no other reason than from Basil Wolverton's involvement with Mad Magazine. Also, the ministers regularly ridiculed esteemed public figures who were not part of "God's" Church, and even questioned their sincerity. GTA and the church were sued by the author of "The Passover Plot" for questioning his sincerity both in the radio broadcasts, and in the PT.
I tried to explain to you before that people here turn around the methods HWA and the ministers used to ridicule people who differed with them, and use those methods right back on HWA/WCG/AC. The proper response to that picture would have been a smile or a chuckle! But, you are probably one of those who still believe that ol' Hog Jowls was an apostle, and that Gary blasphemed him with his comments.
5:03 posted:
ReplyDelete“ Seriously dude, is that all you have to bring to the table? Complaining about a picture that has NOTHING to do with what is posted here?
Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 5:03:00 PM PST”
Sorry, but it has everything to do with what is posted here.
Besides, it is just a beginning series of questions which will get deeper into what is posted here. And, if the moderator feels they are too hard to answer for any reason, I’m sure he won’t pass them.
Now, what is so wrong with my first question? If you can’t handle such a simple one, you certainly won’t be able to as they get harder.
Besides, just think of the fun you won’t have if we don’t ask critical kinds of questions.
Ask away. You'll either have your own "Wow! Well snap!" moment or will discover that nobody here wishes to return to the old vomit of Armstrongism.
Delete2:07 wrote, "I guess you mean the millions that come from the likes of this comment."
ReplyDeleteArmstrongists have a penchant for picking at Christianity in a very biased way. If an Armstrongist can find one person who claims to be Christian and believes something eccentric then the whole Christian movement is eccentric. I am still amazed that Armstrongists like to pretend that Christianity is antinomian. They specialize in calumny against Christianity.
So, there are about 160 million Christians in the world - most of them nominal. Just as in Armstrongism, not everyone is with the program. There were racists and right-wing political types that ornamented the WCG when I was a member. Must be the same for the COGs. But if only 10% of the 160 million who profess Christianity are genuine followers of The Way, that is still 16 million people. You can quote as many critics as you like. You do not know who is in the Body of Christ and who is not. Neither do I. I would even grant there are a few Christians in the COGs for whatever reasons. Only God knows.
Scout
Epilogue
ReplyDeleteNO2HWA wrote, “Every question should lead to more questions producing an endless fascinating journey of faithful experience.” I appreciate the spirit of honest inquiry that this statement reflects – inquiry that accords with faith. Some who underestimate the depth of the Bible would reject this view. For them, they are in command of a static body of knowledge and their loyalty to this fixed gnosis is the mark of their “faith”. I believe that the opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty. The Bible encourages respectful questions and to force it into a rigid mold is to take an autocratic and complacent approach that is disrespect.
Against that ideological background, let me say that I am a seeker of knowledge about God. My views are based on analysis, logic, research and Christian dogma. This is not to say that my views have earned the status of unimpeachable Truth. The Truth about God is something we will never understand. To think otherwise is the error of lèse-majesté. If you doubt the eternal mystery of the uncreated God just ask yourself “Where did God come from?” Do you think you will ever be more prepared to understand the answer to this question than you are now? I think not.
I prefer to think of my views not as eternal Truth but state-of-the-art. And the art will progress as the Holy Spirit reveals more to Christian thinkers. 2 Peter 3:18 states, “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” This does not sound like theological stasis. It does not sound like the knowledge of Jesus has become fixed and sealed in our day – or ever.
Scout
There are an estimated 2.2 billion Christians in the world, which makes Christianity the largest religion on the planet.
ReplyDeleteThe United States tops the list with an estimated 230 million Christians living in the country. Christianity is by far the most popular religion in the country, with the [majority being Protestant Christians](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/religious-composition-of-the-united-states.html.
The above quotes are from a web search on how many Christians in the world? Check it out yourself.
So, Scout wrote: "So, there are about 160 million Christians in the world - most of them nominal."
Thanks Scout you just posted what I have been trying to point out. Your claims about the facts on cogs, etal, are almost as accurate as your claim on 160 million Christians in the world. If you can't get that right, you certainly can't be correct with your human created philosophy. As for me, I will stick with the simplicity of the Bible.
Even Paul said he would rather speak with simple words that are easily understood than (theological gibberish.), my paraphrase.
7:44
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify.
Pew Research indicates that there are about 167 million Christians in the USA. That was the figure I was going for. Whatever, it does not alter my point. I wrote that there were millions of Christians who believed what I have written. You wrote,
"I guess you mean the millions that come from the likes of this comment. "Many mainline denominations, however, are spiritually dead or close to it." (P. 4, Smacked by The Truth. By David Bybee.)"
No, I don't mean those millions I mean the millions of genuine, non-nominal Christians.
7:44 also wrote, "If you can't get that right, you certainly can't be correct with your human created philosophy."
Do you realize how inane that reasoning is? It's like saying my math teacher said there were four dogcatchters in town and I know there are really five. So I am never going to study math again. You have difficulty following logical discourse. I think you should really consider if you made the right decision in becoming an Armstrongist. And, by the way, the human created philsophy you believe in is called Armstrongism.
Scout
Simple is relative to class and level of education. There is such a thing as loss of precision which results from over simplification. Addressing the high end with one's communications works to elevate and edify the entire audience.
ReplyDeleteWhen the quality of ones words matches the depth of one's intellect and ideas, it is immediately obvious to those capable of discerning. There's a profound difference between that and simply breaking out Roget's.
Your retreat to simplicity was an act of wisdom, 7:44, although the Bible is anything but simple! Wise men have poured over it for millennia.
ReplyDelete"... I was required to leave the Northern-Wheaton area and study at the University of Chicago Seminary
Consortium. This is the largest theological institution in America. A handful of the students were faithful Christian believers trying to make sense of it all. The seminarians and students at the University of Chicago represent almost every church in America. The training not only attempts to destroy Bible -based faith, but the mission of the faculty is to plant every seed of doubt that will dismantle
Christ-centered Christianity....
The classrooms were and are full of what I call "evangelism in reverse," students sharing how they left Bible-based Christianity. A few of us Evangelicals were completely caught by surprise
to hear faculty and students deride and attack biblical faith. As a Christian who loves Jesus and trusts God's Word, it's easy to become very naive and believe that everyone and every institution that in some way mentions Christ must be seeking to be a faithful
follower. In reality, many churches and theological institutions are far from Jesus and from trusting God's Word. Despite that however, faithful followers of Jesus Christ are found within most denominations (including Presbyterian) and theological institutions."
P. 46-47
Now, let's consider my experience at AC from 1959-1968.
Bible was presented as valid, solid and inspired.
Bible was true, and was a manual on how to live, contained prophecy that was real. And, revealed spiritual truth and understanding, plus much more.
Faculty was not trying to destroy the Bible, its teachings, nor student's faith or belief.
Students were looking for truth of what the Bible said, and what the doctrines were. They also worked part time for the college, and those I knew believed a real and important work was being done.
If there were any/many who did not believe the above, I never heard any such discussions or comments to that effect.
None of the ministers or faculty ramrodded me, or treated badly in anyway. A handful of others I had to work with were a little overboard. I'm not going to name them here, but 2 or 3 were ex military.
I went several times to the ministry for prayer for healing. Guess what, they were answered. One was instant. And, later after marriage the whole family had healings. One such event was very dangerous and could have caused death. Others I know had healings and answers to prayers.
Well, that's my experience at AC and before leaving the WCG. That was decades ago. And a comparison with the largest American Christian seminary.
And, it seems too many here think AC and the WCG had worse problems than mainstream Christianity. Guess again. Both have their problems which boils down to individuals who come to biblical sources with big personal problems, and when they don't get answers and changes it is always the fault of others. Of course, they themselves are never the problem don't cha know?
Shall we talk about the real problem someday or shall we just continue criticizing these bad people with their own faults, who didn't make us better?
Human failings do not negate the Bible. Remember it is "according to YOUR FAITH," not someone else's.
Thanks for reading.
".......my experience at AC from 1959-1968...."
ReplyDeleteOh, Dude! I am like so sorry, man! Long before my parents reached your age, I decided to just let them be and not to torment them with my studies and discoveries that countered the beliefs they learned from HWA. And, I feel as if I ought to give you the same consideration. When you live for so long in a certain way and holding certain beliefs, even the most moderate changes can be painful. And, I'm not going to do that to you. Just a suggestion, but why don't you pick a screen name? When I see it, I'll back off and not be so harsh.
The Catholics have a saying I always thought was cool whenever I attended mass with my third wife: "Peace be unto you!" Somehow, it seems so appropriate.
To 3:19:
ReplyDeleteYour “kindness” is just so overwhelming, I just can’t thank you enough. Have a nice day.
"Just a suggestion, but why don't you pick a screen name? When I see it, I'll back off and not be so harsh. "
ReplyDeleteSo says the coward at 3:19 who is too lazy or afraid to make up a screen name. Go back to bed Boomer.
Anon, Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:18:00 PM PST, said:
ReplyDelete"...I doubt that anyone else in the Christian Movement has diminished God, albeit through honest misunderstanding, as much as HWA and his followers..."
******
What do you mean by HWA and his followers have "diminished God?"
This thread started as about some Plan B, and then went down a corkscrew/pig's tail, to many other scattered subject directions like the hirelings of the WCG organizations who fled, leaving their Pasadena ministerial credentials behind, to strive to do their own thing, and much better than HWA could have ever done, because they, driven by another spirit, were so confident in their "gospel (another?)" message that their another Jesus was to "very soon" return to reign on earth for 1,000 years. What's happening?
Former WCG hirelings like Winnail, Shabi, Flurry, FWN, Pack (throw a name in), Franks, Weinland, etc. still adhere to their MickeyMouseMillennium (MMM). Who has forgotten years 1972, 1975, 1986...2022? Isn't this all part of Plan B? All of these hirelings would probably tell you he has the mind of God: they know God's Plan to save humanity. Former hirelings: is it time to dream up another Plan? Or, get into harmony with God's Plan as God so designed for humanity?
Some believe a Plan C (Church) may have been the establishment of God's Church, which does not seem to be any more successful than Plan A (Angels), or Plan B (Man). Sin continues to happen in the lives of all of those WCG hirelings who fled, like wolves (John 10:12) with tails between their legs! Which of those proud (Job 41:34) hirelings really cared (:13)? Time's telling.
Could God's Plan be something else other than these apparently failed satanic man made theories?
Did Plan B diminish God? How about the fact that these former hirelings still believe and teach that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament, which was taught by both HWA and GTA? It is false. How do we know? From one verse among many:
"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate,..." Acts 3:13
Might it be blasphemy to put some other god, god of the OT, in place of that God of Abraham Isaac and of Jacob? That God of Abraham was Jesus' God, Jesus' Father. Ask Him? Scriptures tell us. Might hat diminish God, The God, that God of Abraham?
Did you have that in mind, Scout, or is it something else that diminished God?
Is Jesus Christ to come to a "second coming?" Where did that phrase come from? Could there be more than two comings? Have people diminished God's Son also, somehow? Time's telling.
Yes, HWA and his followers did diminish The God, that God of Abraham, and I believe it was a misunderstanding: not intentional on HWA's part. We know Satan has been active in God's Church through all 7 eras (Rev 2-3), and would be allowed to bring his deceptions in through his own "righteous" ministers: angels of light (2 Cor 11:13-15).
If God inspired HWA and revealed to him to teach us something that was right, biblically-speaking, then it's right. If HWA taught us things that were wrong, biblically-speaking, than it's wrong.
To be continued…
John
Continuing...
ReplyDeleteScout also wrote: "...2:19 wrote, "Only Scout, Lonnie, etal grasp this strictly carnal human philosophy, made up by those who are not subject to the law, neither indeed can be."..."
******
Well, should we blame/judge HWA, especially if God hadn't quite yet revealed the full knowledge to him to give to us? No! Ephesians 6:12! Perhaps there was a "third party" at work in HWA's life, just like it is in our lives (James 4:5; 2 Tim 2:26; John 8:44, etc.)?
Think about the Apostle Paul. Was there sin (I John 3:8, 12; James 4:5) in his life? He said there was. Romans 7:17, 20! Are we any different?
I like to think that we each are doing the best we can with whatever we've been given, and life goes on. Do any of us still diminish God, The God, in our lives?
Probably, but The God, nor His foreknowledge and prophecies regarding His perfect Plan of salvation to save humanity and subsequently destroy Satan and his angels, will not be diminished no matter what anybody, whether subject to God's law or not, says or thinks, but...
Time will tell...
John
Nature is all polar, and most humans are philosophically incapable of even seeing or correctly applying what is in the vast area between the two polar
ReplyDeleteopposites. For humans, what is true is that once you become aware of "a thing", you automatically become aware of the opposite of that thing. If you know good, you also know the polar opposite of good, which is Bad, or evil.
Church teaches you that anything less than perfect good is in fact evil. Humans often settle for the best of the evils. Apparently 1/3 of the angels knew what evil was, so it did exist when they made that choice. For there to be only good, God will need to destroy and obliterate even the possibility of evil. Seems impossible, doesn't it? How can we be problem solvers if there is no evil?
Anon1215,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that Chicago University gave you that experience. There are many Christian Universities that are Scripture based; your experience at Chicago University is not that which you will find at many/most Christian Universities which graduate many strong Christians.
mike
12:09 Thanks, but that was NOT my experience. The part about Ambassador College was my experience.
ReplyDeleteThe other was the experience of a student at the Chicago seminary who later became a Presbyterian pastor and wrote a book I quoted from, p. 47-48 of Smacked by the Truth. The point being AC and the WCG are over criticized here compared to the problems in universal Christianity. Sorry, I left out the source.
In actuality it is a vast difference between AC teaching the Bible is true versus the Chicago seminary teaching and attitude. I would take the AC ATTITUDE in my years there over any time at the other place.
Mike, you should read the book Smacked by the Truth, and some of the writings of other Christians about these schools and other seminaries like Fuller, etc. The story of how great they are is a bit over rated, Sad to say.
ReplyDeleteThey have way more problems and bigger ones than the WCG, and those are/were bad enough.
Presentation and application are everything. You can make a child hate ice cream, or a beautiful, sensual, and charismatic woman detest living in a mansion. A cooking implement used to prepare delicious steaks can be turned into a paddle and used for spanking. Truth, if shoved down someone's throat or weaponized to punish, can evoke hatred.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't "the thing" so much as it is how it is used to manipulate, punish, or control, that becomes evil. Humans are very adaptable to, and can find great happiness with a variety of different cultures. But, the human spirit thrives under freedom with only enough law to preserve that freedom. The vast majority of humanity throughout history did not have Bibles, and/or were not literate enough to read them or comprehend what was on their pages. Herbert W. Armstrong's unique personality caused him to create a religion in which the Bible became a weapon. He may not have treated it as in the examples of a few mainstream seminaries, but his government from the top down, ruling with a fist of iron certainly caused many of his followers to question its origins, inspiration, and authority just as if that had been taught at Ambassador College.
There is an innate sense of justice and right and wrong with which all humans are born. This can become corrupted by nurture. People become embittered and filled with hatred as a result of injustice and tyranny. It is not an unexplainable phenomenon that people would leave and speak out about tyrannical and exploitative situations, even if there might have been some truth behind the tyranny. It is also true that some contrarians, regardless of the situation, manage to live below the radar, and escape or evade the brunt of the tyranny, and to actually advocate for the tyranny. That is part of what perpetuates tyranny.
Anon, Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:15:00 AM PST, said:
ReplyDelete"...I will admit, what I have written raises questions. Does the future exist even though we cannot see it?..."
******
Yes, the future exists! E.g. Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. E.g. 30 pieces of silver. E.g. He shall not fail, etc.
Then you asked: "...And what of theodicy? If God knows the future could he not have influenced it to move in a more positive direction – away from evil? Why in chapter 6 of Genesis is he is already having to wipe out mankind...What I do know is that HWA’s view on this involves a diminishing of God..."
******
We are learning to hate evil, just as Adam and Eve learned after Satan entered the Garden of Eden.
Isaiah 45:7 says: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]."
Additionally, God did create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for a purpose.
FWIIW, Noah and family members, were a shadow of future things to come. The flood was a shadow too.
Did HWA's view diminish anything in this? Was there more to the "Two trees" where HWA so often strived to return to (while many mocked him for doing so), but God gave him no more revealed knowledge? Did HWA have no need to know more?
The future exists and time will tell...
John
Anon, Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:13:00 AM PST, said:
ReplyDelete"...12:58 wrote, "The young man saw spirit chariots, spirit horses. They had forms."
The young man may have seen a vision. We can't say. John of Patmos saw all kinds of visions in the book of Revelation that had form and were entirely symbolic - beasts that symbolized nations. It is entirely possible that God uses some kind of durable substance to make things for his creatures, parallel to matter and energy. I would balk at asserting that these things are "spirit" in the sense of pneuma. God is pneuma. We as human beings are implemented with sarx, psuche and pneuma. Nowhere in the bible does it assert that God makes objects out of pneuma.
******
Scout, we're told: "This [is] the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts." Zech 4:6
God accomplished His will by His power, by His Spirit.
The young man did not see a vision; he saw the real thing!
FWIIW, there are more than three dimensions; Paul told us so:
"May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;" Ephesians 3:18
Most are familiar with the 3-D of length depth and height.
The young man had not experienced what Elisha saw when Elijah was taken up in a chariot of fire, and Elisha knew that if it were God's will that his servant could experience similar events.
“And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
12 And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.
13 ¶ He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan;” 2 Kings 2:11-13
Elisha did not see a vision. If it were a vision Elisha would not have been able to pick up a physical mantle that fell from Elijah's body.
God allowed the servant to see something from another dimension, that was just as real as the Syrian armies surrounding Elisha, but far more of them and more powerful.
Elisha in his lifetime did experience approximately double the number of miracles that were accomplished in Elijah's life.
Is God's Spirit really all that powerful? Did the young man see more than a vision?
Time will tell...
John
Anon, Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:18:00 AM PST, said:
ReplyDelete"...I don't know how to take all of this in! You'd think that Gerald Waterhouse might have had a more lasting influence on the imagination of Armstrongites! Based on some of the comments here, my recommendation would be that since it's too cold to go to the lake on the sabbath, why not go to the library and check out the original Star Trek DVD's? It will stimulate your imagination and assist you in your conceptualizations of God..."
******
I have always found Gerald Waterhouse to be an interesting, exciting, entertainer; however, while he lived I never realized how very speculative he was with the scriptures. Did he, or HWA for that matter, affect God's salvation in your life, or in my salvation? No, not at all. We may all thank God, by the power of His Spirit, through Jesus Christ (I Cor 8:6) for accomplishing His Plan of Salvation in our lives prior to the destruction of Satan (Isaiah 27:1; Isaiah 64:8; Ezekiel 28:19; Heb 2:14, etc.) and his angels (Matthew 25:41, 46; 2 Peter 2:12, etc.): those invisible spirits and principalities of Ephesians 2:2, 6:12, etc.
What do invisible spirit beings have to do with the control (not influence) of the children of disobedience (Eph 2:2)? How did these things control sealed Firstfruits from within? James asked: "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?"
Enter Star Trek: Voyager Season 4 Episode 7 "Scientific Method." One may not have to go to a library: perhaps Netflix or something similar will provide a viewing of it.
I am not a Star Trek fan and I have only watched that one episode and perhaps a couple of others. I found that episode to explain how invisible spirit beings may impact human beings. Sure it's fiction, but it may be closer to reality than we may have ever imagined.
It seems Satan and his angels are becoming very active lately worldwide with all of the evils occurring; they know their careers are limited. They know a day of destruction in their lives is future and not some vision only. There is a future. By their fruits you know them.
So often people enjoy looking at the "Trojan horses," while not appreciating or "seeing" the real enemies are/were within.
Anyway, this is a light topic, and I thought I'd share a few thoughts on it, but do we wrestle flesh and blood, or might it we really be wrestling with principalities within?
Time will tell...
John
John:
ReplyDeleteI scanned some of your material. It is somewhat diffuse but I identified a few issues that were not already addressed in the posted essay.
1. When is a vision a vision?
The reasonable answer is that we do not know because none of us have access to the realm of the spirit. No physical artifacts in association with the vision can demonstrate that the vision is real in the sense of having an objective existence in the human realm. Certainly these sightings convey real information. If the sky opened up and I saw a horse galloping, it would be so unrelated to what I consider to be reality, I would make no presumptions about its existential nature. Since it would be a miracle, I would not even make deductions if I found a horse apple lying on the ground later. Miracles may have many different effects.
2. When I asked whether the future actually exists my statement was probably confusing. I was asking if the future had an objective existence. Could we for instance, if we understood the physics, get into a time machine and visit the future? Without a doubt, the future exists subjectively within the mind of God. The question also surfaces as to whether there is a difference, in the mind of God, between subjectivity and objectivity - something we do not know in the confines of our reality.
3. HWA has stated that God is "of spirit composition.". I think this has led many Armstrongist lay members to believe, because of anthropomorphic views of God, that spirit is a substance that holds form and can be fabricated. Is there such a thing as a spirit horse? I don't believe so. There may be a horse made out of something unknown - a horse that lives in a different dimension from us. But we do not know its composition or its exobiology. The unfounded rule among Armstrongists seems to be if it is not made of matter then it is made of spirit. And without ever knowing what the term spirit can encompass. Does God make tables and chairs out of the same thing he is made out of? I think that is not only conjectural but idiosyncratic.
You expressed alarm at my statement about Armstrongists diminishing God. I think that is adequately explained in the essay I wrote.
Scout
Scout, regarding point #3, frequency of vibration could provide additional answers, although it would be impossible for us to test things in the spirit world. We know that everything in the universe is vibrating. Solid objects are just vibrating at a very low frequency. I have believed for some time now that God's building materials are Himself. It is how He is omnipresent. You get in your car. You are driving a piece of God down a road that is also a piece of God. The trees, animals, and other objects you pass are a piece of God. He just alters the frequencies, which modifies how these things are perceived by our five senses, and how they are affected by the laws of physics.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is just my opinion.
Scout, perhaps it is you who is idiosyncratic. Let’s see. You posted the following. I have inserted comments to illustrate how your statements come across.
ReplyDelete“ 3. HWA has stated that God is "of spirit composition.".
Response: bible clearly says the Father ‘IS SPIRIT.’ That statement needs no interpretation, but you do it anyway.
I think
Response: I/ we don’t care what YOU think. You are not any mind reading authority that qualifies to make such a judgement.
this has led many Armstrongist lay members to believe, because of anthropomorphic views of God, that spirit is a substance that holds form and can be fabricated.
Response: You are the one here espousing anthropomorphism, not anyone you ‘think’ who believes the Bible for what it says does. Plus, you are the one saying the cogs diminish the Creator. How do you KNOW spirit cannot hold shape and form.? What is your experience with spirit? Why do you LIMIT His power??? Isn’t He limitless according to your previous statements. You are doing what you claim others are doing. You keep saying THEY diminish His power, but t is you and the philosophy you have accepted that diminishes.
Is there such a thing as a spirit horse? I don't believe so.
Response: Who cares what YOU B E L I E V E? That is nothing more than your BIASED perception to carry on your theophany philosophy. Which is nothing more than a made up list of big sounding words to make one sound and feel intelligent.
There may be a horse made out of something unknown - a horse that lives in a different dimension from us. But we do not know its composition or its exobiology.
Response: There MAY BE… but we do not KNOW… Wow, sounds like it came from a typical science thesis, which always uses words like, must be, could be, appears to be, maybe, the inference is, etc. all stated as if these are factual statements. They are not.
The unfounded rule among Armstrongists seems to be if it is not made of matter then it is made of spirit. without ever knowing what the term spirit can encompass.
Response: SEEMS to be…????? Now there is a real FACT WITHOUT QUESTION, don’t you know?
Does God make tables and chairs out of the same thing he is made out of? I think that is not only conjectural but idiosyncratic..”
Response: According to scripture EVERYTHING that exists came OUT OF the Creator’s being, or essence as you like to call it. You might try reading the NT in koine someday. And, do a little study on the power and meaning of the koine prepositions!
Scout, the above is an analysis of your comments, in order to show how
They come across as speculation, not as real facts.
The Chinese it is said take the idea of nothingness in a different way than we westerners do. To us nothing is nothing. In their mind nothing is just as solid as something, but in its nothingness. Biblically speaking, spirit is as real as matter is real, just two different realms.
The Bible describes all kinds of things existing in the spirit realm. Yet, you seem to diminish all the Bible says on that topic. If I have made a true statement about what you are doing, then what is your authority for diminishing all that was given under SPIRITUAL INSPIRATION direct from the Creator of ALL THINGS????????
10:26 ~ How is it that you missed the fact that this is an opinion site, and not the Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course?
DeleteYour latest dissertation is just full of Armstrong shibboleths!
Anon, Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:44:00 AM PST: Scout said the following and I will reply within double [[brackets]]:
ReplyDelete"...John:
I scanned some of your material. It is somewhat diffuse but I identified a few issues that were not already addressed in the posted essay.
1. When is a vision a vision?
The reasonable answer is that we do not know because none of us have access to the realm of the spirit. No physical artifacts in association with the vision can demonstrate that the vision is real in the sense of having an objective existence in the human realm. Certainly these sightings convey real information. If the sky opened up and I saw a horse galloping, it would be so unrelated to what I consider to be reality, I would make no presumptions about its existential nature. Since it would be a miracle, I would not even make deductions if I found a horse apple lying on the ground later. Miracles may have many different effects.
[[And that is fine. I read the account of Elijah and Elisha; I believed it was not a vision. I read the account of Elisha and his servant; I believed it was not a vision. God worked out all of the details. Time will tell. I'm content with that.]]
2. When I asked whether the future actually exists my statement was probably confusing. I was asking if the future had an objective existence. Could we for instance, if we understood the physics, get into a time machine and visit the future? Without a doubt, the future exists subjectively within the mind of God. The question also surfaces as to whether there is a difference, in the mind of God, between subjectivity and objectivity - something we do not know in the confines of our reality.
[[You asked: "...Could we for instance, if we understood the physics, get into a time machine and visit the future?..."
No, but God has given us plenty of details regarding the future, but it is God who works out the details.
For example, we may understand this future of Rev 21:3, which will be reality beyond the 1,000 years, after Satan is loosed from the pit:
"...Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God."
Do we need a time machine? No.
To be continued...
John
Continuing…
ReplyDeleteFor example, details of other things to occur at that same time period were given to Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 32:36 "And now therefore thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence;
37 Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely:
38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
39 And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
41 Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul."
It is a done deal (Acts 15:18; Heb 4:3), and God will fulfill all He said He would do. Is that day here yet? No, but that future will happen. I read it; I believe it; for me that's it!
When it comes to events past, present and future: God knows it all. It's like watching a 100 mile long parade; He, not restricted by 3 or 4 dimensions, looking at the entire parade from above can "see" and know it all, but us humans? Wherever you stand looking at the parade, whether in the past or present: you only see what is in front of your eyes. We can't see it all. God has documented lots of works that He has, is, and will be accomplishing in the lives of all those who become His: aka "And they shall be my people, and I will be their God."
We're not there yet. It has nothing to do with the MMMillennium, supposedly 1,000 year reign on earth of another Jesus, where so many strive for force future events scheduled for beyond the 1000 years back inside their millennium. I read those verses as written; I believe them; that's it. Time will tell.]]
3. HWA has stated that God is "of spirit composition."...
You expressed alarm at my statement about Armstrongists diminishing God. I think that is adequately explained in the essay I wrote..."
[[You expressed the alarm, not me. I agreed with you and gave examples of diminishing God.
Another e.g.: When people take events God has scheduled to be fulfilled in the Eighth Day (God's 7th annual Holyday) and strive to force them into an earlier time period, that 1000 years (MMM): that diminishes God and His perfect plan to save humanity and subsequently destroy Satan and his angels.]]
John
1:36 Well, if it is an opinion site, that’s just your opinion not based on fact, right?
ReplyDeleteSo, it’s an opinion that “ Your latest dissertation is just full of Armstrong shibboleths!” Even though it is not a factual statement at all, just your opinion.
One could surmise from your statement “ 10:26 ~ How is it that you missed the fact that this is an opinion site, and not the Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course?” that nothing posted here is factual either. It’s just all opinion.
Thanks for revealing this to us. I was hoping someone would eventually admit it. Double thanks.
Caught your drift there Bubba! "If God is all powerful, can He create a rock so big that even He can't move it?"
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you are anxious to share with us "the real facts". But, that's just my opinion! 😎 I bid you adieu. Please do continue with your shibs, and above all things, have a wonderful sabbath!
"10:26 ~ How is it that you missed the fact that this is an opinion site, and not the Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course?"
ReplyDeleteThank goodness this is not the Correspondence Course. That was one of the worst things the church ever put out. It ranks right up there beside MOA and Missing Dimension In Sex book. Total garbage.
3:26 I always have a wonderful sabbath, and the same to you.
ReplyDeleteAmazing how easy it is for those on this site to criticize HWA/WCG etal, but really can’t handle it when their faults are criticized. Very telling, don’t you think?
It’s the nature of the carnal human when they group together to pick on those they consider too weak to stand up to them.
Mirror mirror on the wall who is the worst of all?
10:04 wrote, "I have believed for some time now that God's building materials are Himself."
ReplyDeleteThough your terminology is different from what I would use, I tend to agree with you. I believe that God is absolute and infinite. there is no such thing as being "outside" of God. I believe the Cosmos exists within God, for instance, giving rise to Acts 17:28. If the Cosmos is bounded, what you will enter when you penetrate the boundary is God himself although I do not think this idea has a physical representation. The usual Christian
statement of Trascendent and Immanent still hold but in a different way. God through immanence does not invade the Cosmos from the outside but the Cosmos resides within him. Nothing is external to God.
I would depart from your wording, however. I do not think God builds things out of material, whether matter or anything else. Humans and Demi-urges do that kind of thing. God simply wills things into existence out of his essence. He donates existence.
Armstrongists are pretty weak on the ontology of God. They just think of him as an anthropomorph - end of story. From that point forward, you have to guess at what they believe about him. He looks like a human, he thinks like a human and he creates things like a human. If he needs a table, he gets his spirit hammer and spirit wood and spirit nails and spirit saw and makes a spirit table. The difference between God and us is not a matter of category but simply a matter of degree. He just happens to be the biggest kid on the block.
It is not clear to me if Armstrongists believe that God is transcendent. I know that they used to believe that he lived in the "sides of the north" within the Cosmos. If you search their literature, I doubt that you will find the word transcendent in reference to God.
Note that I am not espousing pantheism. That is way different from what I am saying.
Scout