tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post7700340659277985845..comments2024-03-28T21:38:37.316-07:00Comments on Banned by HWA! News and Observations About Armstrongism and the Church of God Movement: Are the problems in the COG the result of bad leaders or its theology?NO2HWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02018654662518613623noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-72330073801176227782017-03-29T19:25:03.579-07:002017-03-29T19:25:03.579-07:00I know this thread is old, but I wanted to mention...I know this thread is old, but I wanted to mention something discussed tonight that relates to the Native American question. <br /><br />I attend an evangelical church that would probably teach, from the pulpit, basically what NCK and Near Earth Object proposed about Native Americans and other "unreached" people. The class I go to on Wednesday night, however, is taught by an older African American woman and, as a result, is attended by several individuals from minority racial groups, as opposed to more WASPY classes. <br /><br />Tonight we got to talking about Abimelech, who was warned in a dream that Abraham was lying about Sarah being his wife. Abimelech must have "talked" enough with God to recognize his voice and held to some code of obedience and morality. <br /><br />Earlier on, in Genesis 15, when God promises Abraham the land of Canaan, He mentions that it's not time yet because the Amorites' time isn't complete yet. For this to be the case, it stands to reason that He was communicating with them and expected something of them. <br /><br />We concluded that it's reasonably biblical to assume God may have worked with individuals and people groups all over the globe, even before Christ's sacrifice. Just don't tell my pastor... Marthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-64076109304015312162017-03-25T19:09:43.361-07:002017-03-25T19:09:43.361-07:00Martha ,you and I need to talk theology and have a...Martha ,you and I need to talk theology and have a fuller discussion than this forum could accommodate. I could even arrange for a live session with my Armstrongite Bible study group which meets every Monday night .We regularly invite Evangelical and other speakers for dialogue and formal debates in theology. I have told my Monday night group about this blog and my interactions with my friend BB and some have been urging me to have a live facebook hookup with Gary and other former Armstrongites. I am sure Black Ops Mikey wouldn't participate but you contact me at iboyne@jis.gov.jm and we will arrange to talk personally .Ian Boyne Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-62046831184265563902017-03-25T15:29:46.015-07:002017-03-25T15:29:46.015-07:00Kennewick man had a morphology that seemed to some...Kennewick man had a morphology that seemed to some anthropologists as European. This created a storm of theories about how Europeans were the First Americans. A popular idea is that these early European settlers originated in the Solutrean Culture. This was a rush for many White Supremacists who were eager to establish the primacy of White Europeans in the Americas (they would have liked Herman Hoeh)and the relegation of Native Americans to the role of interlopers. <br /><br />But, alas, Kennewick Man's genetic material was extracted and analyzed in a Danish laboratory and the finding was that Kennewick was a typical Native American, haplogroup Q, I believe. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08487906691943831671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-90547424172006418142017-03-25T15:12:20.630-07:002017-03-25T15:12:20.630-07:00NEO, that's an interesting explanation. I'...NEO, that's an interesting explanation. I'd like to read more about that, because the issue bothers me. <br /><br />I have heard many at my evangelical church say that no one can be saved without hearing the name of Christ, or couldn't be saved before His sacrifice. They even put "Old Testament" saints in a different category, or in some kind of spiritual "holding tank" until Christ's sacrifice. That's crazy. <br /><br />Hebrews 11 lists people who were saved by their faith before Christ's death. Revelation says He was slain from the foundation of the world. And that sacrifice was good enough for God to extend salvation to Abraham in Genesis 15:6. Can't get much further back than that, biblically speaking. Did Abraham literally "hear the name of Christ" or did he place his faith outside of himself and onto the Almighty, with whom he had a relationship. And does that have other implications for Native American tribes, and all of pre-Christ humanity? I sometimes wonder whether this standard of faith applies more broadly than evangelicals care to define it. <br /><br />Marthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-66467721269299698152017-03-25T14:57:20.017-07:002017-03-25T14:57:20.017-07:00Even if you get rid of all the crazy doctrines, I ...Even if you get rid of all the crazy doctrines, I think these theological misunderstandings doom Armstrongism to dysfunction. They focus you on the wrong things and promote a sense of self-righteousness because they have this special "gnosis" that the rest of the "deceived" Christian world misses. On the flip side, the teaching that we must maintain our salvation through our track record of obedience promotes despair, depression and a sequela of resulting problems.<br /><br />If that weren't enough, it encourages confrontation among brethren because you can't just sit idly by and watch someone commit the sin that disqualifies them from the Kingdom. There is a difference between what the New Testament instructs on this issue and how it is applied in Armstrongism. It is seen as your duty to tell our brother about every possible misstep he makes, even if he disagrees (for example restaurants on Sabbath, or really any point of Sabbath observance upon which we disagree). If salvation is dependent upon us, then everything we do "counts." I believe this is a major reason we have so much splintering and strife. <br /><br />I realize there are other issues between the two systems, but these are the big ones, as I see it, that cause the majority of the dysfunction. I hope you understand this in the spirit it was intended - not as critical and finger pointing, but from someone who cares deeply about these issues and the many family members and friends she still has mired in this broken system. Marthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-74634342328363984452017-03-25T14:56:36.661-07:002017-03-25T14:56:36.661-07:00The second issue is Armstrongism's take on how...The second issue is Armstrongism's take on how salvation is secured. Most of Christianity teaches that salvation comes by grace through faith, and that good works are the evidence of salvation and the fruit of the Spirit living inside an individual. Different denominations have different takes on once-saved-always-saved vs. losing salvation. Though I generally believe in once-saved-always-saved, although not in the "cheap grace" way the COGs typically mock, there are a few scriptures that throw theological monkey wrenches into it, so I acknowledge there is room for debate. <br /><br />But this is not the debate Armstrongism makes. Armstrongism teaches, in some groups stronger than others, that salvation is something we must maintain through our good works and acts of obedience. They hint that there is some ambiguous sin-to-righteousness ratio we must achieve in order to qualify for the Kingdom. If we don't hit this tipping point by the end of our lives, we won't "make it." Philadelphia and Dave Pack may be the ones really trying to scare their members, but this is a basic Armstrongist doctrine. UCG, COGWA, all the groups you would categorize as mild, stable, unsensational, whatever. I do know of a couple COG ministers who teach that keeping the Sabbath and Holy Days, meats, etc. are essentially a fruit of the spirit - that someone who has been converted will naturally want to do these things - not that they secure our salvation. I think they're wrong, but I can respect it. But these teachings come from individuals and and certainly aren't in anyone's statements of beliefs. <br /><br />So, in a nutshell, Christianity teaches that we are justified once and for all, and then sanctified throughout the rest of our natural lives. Armstrongism teaches that we are initially justified, but must be re-justified every time we sin, and that our degree of sanctification determines whether we achieve salvation.<br />Marthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-37438020032090930712017-03-25T14:56:05.943-07:002017-03-25T14:56:05.943-07:00But I think that Jesus warned us not to mix winesk...But I think that Jesus warned us not to mix wineskins for a reason, and that reason is evident in Armstrongism today. The fruit of focusing on works of law - which the COGs, even the mainstream ones you mention - leads to judgmentalism, self-righteousness and superiority, which are antithetical to what the New Testament tells us Christians should be. It was evident in the Judaizers of the New Testament, and it is evident in the Judaizers of today. It leads us to focus on the images that foreshadowed the Messiah rather than the Messiah Himself. <br /><br />A key example of this is the Days of Unleavened Bread. I kept the DUB faithfully, unresentfully for decades. We had family traditions. It was a positive thing. I now find it totally offensive, not because of spite or bitterness, but because I think it so aptly illustrates the problem with Armstrongism. Here we are, combing every corner of our lives, hoping we can just maybe do "good enough," focusing on us, our works, what we have or haven't achieved, totally ignoring the fact that the Savior rose victorious and our victory comes through Him alone. We are dwelling in the shadows, trying to scrub out our own sin while the Christian world is celebrating a risen Savior - the proof that He was who He said He was, which gave credibility to His promise of forgiveness of sin. As many hangups as I had about Christmas, I loved Easter from the second I understood it because the difference between the two observances was just so stark to me. Paul's words from Philippians 3 struck my heart - everything I once held meaningful now seemed like rubbish.<br /><br />http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/04/spiritual-traps-from-days-of-unleavened.html<br />http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/04/spiritual-traps-from-days-of-unleavened_24.html<br />http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/04/spiritual-traps-from-days-of-unleavened_28.html<br /><br />So I believe that confusing our covenantal responsibilities compromises the theology of Armstrongism. At best, it is a distraction. At worst, it sets its leaders and membership up for the type of judgmental, self-righteous, destructive attitudes and actions we see in the splinters of today and the Judaizers of the epistles. And it also sets Armstrongists for a misunderstanding of the second problem that xHWA and I have discussed, a misunderstanding of grace, works and salvation. <br />Marthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-56792631584111516692017-03-25T14:55:11.747-07:002017-03-25T14:55:11.747-07:00Ian Boyne, I wanted to get in touch with you here ...Ian Boyne, I wanted to get in touch with you here since I don't know how else to contact you. I feel your pain on time for theological projects. At different stages in life I have been a journalist, a caretaker, an educator, a parent, a spouse... theological stuff takes time. I am not as active on ABD anymore as I would like to be, for the same reasons. Anyway, perhaps this can give you a jumping off point or some food for thought, whenever you get the time. I apologize in advance for the length.<br /><br />I firmly believe that it is bad theology that promotes the dysfunction in Armstrongism. And not just on the fringe issues. However, I would say that misunderstandings of these issues cause problems not just in Armstrongism, but in any cultic or fundamentalist religious system in which they are manifest. <br /><br />xHWA - the other main writer at ABD - and I have talked a lot about what causes this dysfunction. Now, xHWA and I are not from the same denomination, or, technically, have even landed on the same side post-Reformation. He and I do not agree with some of the doctrines of one another's churches, or even our own churches. Yet I think we both define Christianity rather inclusively. So we clearly don't believe that 100 percent doctrinal correctness, were that even possible, is what defines Christians. So what are the issues? I think we've narrowed it down to two basic topics. <br /><br />The first is confusion over the Covenantal responsibilities. We believe the COGs try to put old wine into new wineskins when they carry forward things like the Sabbath, Holy Days and clean and unclean meats into the New Covenant. Despite what WCG taught us, there is not much evidence placing things like these in eternally-existent categories separate from the covenants. It would seem that they were specifically part of the Sinai Covenant and ended with the death of the Testator (Hebrews 9:16). <br /><br />http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/10/confusing-covenants.html<br />AS BEREANS DID: Confusing the Covenants<br />asbereansdid.blogspot.com<br />Why covenants? Because I think you will find that the topic of covenants is absolutely key to any discussion that starts with the phrase “God tells us to…<br /><br />Is it possible to be a Christian and continue in these practices? It may be, since we see that individuals like Peter and Paul may have. This is not surprising, because they were ethnic Jews. The whole debate in Acts 15 and throughout much of the New Testament was whether Gentiles must adopt these practices. Now, it stands to reason that if there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ and all are saved the same way, and if Gentiles aren't required to engage in these, then neither are Jews. And this should go doubly if you throw out British Israelism, which I believe you espouse, because then none of us even have Israelite heritage, we're all Gentiles! But I certainly wouldn't say that Peter didn't inherit salvation because he continued to abstain from meats deemed unclean under the Sinai Covenant. That would be crazy.Marthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-26441639936938968692017-03-25T14:25:21.342-07:002017-03-25T14:25:21.342-07:00To March 24 at 2:26pm - the "the instigator o...To March 24 at 2:26pm - the "the instigator of this post"<br /><br />As I mentioned in my earlier post - As was the practice of Herbert W. Armstrong and is still the practice of his disciples in all of the WCG splinter groups today, it is apparent that you're reading things into the Holy Bible and twisting Scripture. Here is the proof. You wrote, <i>"You earlier quoted Isaiah 43.10 which states 'before me no God FORMED' which implies that God Himself developed."</i> <br /><br />The word "FORMED" does not imply that God Himself developed. Within the context of Isaiah 43:10 and the Biblical interpretation, the word "FORMED" means to fashion, frame and to <b>create</b>. Look at Genesis 2:7 where it says that the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and look at Genesis 1:27 where the Bible says that God created man. Also look at Isaiah 42:1 where the LORD says that He created Jacob and formed [created] Israel. <br /><br />God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated— He simply exists. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it. There is no one else like Him nor will there ever be. That is the context of Isaiah 43:10. <br /><br />Also because God is Omnipotent, which means all-powerful, this means God can do what he wants without needing billions of years of "working hard" to do it. Being Omnipotent means God is not subject to physical limitations like man is. As I said before, nowhere does the Bible teach or even suggest that humans will "be born again into the God family" to become God. Armstrongites do not understand the differences between the creature and the Creator and I would dare say you all are deliberately perverting the truth of God.<br /><br />Also when you say that,<i>"Christ died for our sins, which proves that the law of equilibrium is metaphorically more powerful than God."</i> This is a completely asinine comment that just proves that your theology (Armstrongism) is the problem, because it is full of doctrines of demons. Hope that was enough heavy lifting for you. Now go do some heavy lifting of your own by repenting of your sins and doing some real Bible study.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-59125839790067024212017-03-25T10:51:06.095-07:002017-03-25T10:51:06.095-07:00Now there's an answer. Thank you NEO.
I won...Now there's an answer. Thank you NEO.<br />I won't ask wether Kennewick man was white, out of respect to the ancestors and my "Sioux" cousins.<br /><br />Now that we have at least one possible solution the question open to debate is about which one is preferred. The "accomodation" or the "armstrongite.<br /><br />But I m sure there is even more to discuss the next 1000 years.<br />Ncknckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-46552873160295191302017-03-25T09:12:37.286-07:002017-03-25T09:12:37.286-07:00I don't know how a baptist views a 1500 BC nat...I don't know how a baptist views a 1500 BC native American.<br /><br />I do know the Mormon view I think. That is natives are Israel or something. Are the Mormons accepted Christians nowadays? As in adhering to the World Council of Churches creed. Ncknckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-58536147036980482162017-03-25T08:37:39.804-07:002017-03-25T08:37:39.804-07:00I am a member of a Native American tribe. I was s...I am a member of a Native American tribe. I was surprised to see a reference to NAs in this thread. I am getting in on this late so I may not understand the background well. <br /><br />What happens to people - whether Native Americans or whomever - who lived before Christ? I believe this question is on the table. <br /><br />North American Evangelical Christianity holds solidly that nobody receives salvation outside hearing the name of Christ and all people who died before Christ arrived and became known in the context of salvation are condemned to Hell.<br /><br />Missionaries working among various unevangelized tribes of people around the world faced this dilemma. The newly converted wanted to know the status of their ancestors. This was considered by Andover Theological Seminary and the conclusion was that there would be Future Probation which is very similar to the Armstrongite idea of the 100 Year Period. This idea has been for the most part resisted by the evangelical Christian movement. <br /><br />It is worthwhile to make a cultural observation. Evangelicals tend to be conservative, poorly educated, self-centered and vote Republican. They cherish the idea that many are going to Hell but they themselves are not. Secretly, I think they cherish the idea that Hell will be populated mostly by people of color. Rob Bell's expression of hope that nobody would really go to Hell based on scriptures with a universalist flavor was met with broad and heated evangelical outrage.<br /><br />But about half the mainstream Christians in the US believe in Inclusivism. I won't try to describe it but it means that the unevangelized will be accommodated under certain conditions. Clark Pinnock, now deceased, advocated a form of Inclusivism in his book A Wider Mercy.<br /><br />Personally, I believe there will be an accommodation of the unevangelized, including Clovis Man, and have an opinion about what that will be. To believe otherwise is to believe that Christ is an incompetent savior. Instead of revealing himself at the beginning of human history, he revealed himself much later on thereby excluding many from salvation by inept timing. This is what the North American Evanglical Movement is really saying about Christ. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08487906691943831671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-55360698356952394712017-03-25T06:35:18.458-07:002017-03-25T06:35:18.458-07:00In the back of my mind I've imagined Armstrong...In the back of my mind I've imagined Armstrongism doctrinally as occupying central intersection in a Venn diagram. The intersecting sets are the doctrines that should be kept and are; should be and aren't; shouldn't be and are; shouldn't be and aren't. But I don't think a Venn diagram would be the right analysis tool here. And somehow the ministry may be seen as an example of the Peter Principle, but that really depends on what one defines as competence in such a group. <br /><br />While tithing would be one of the most universal, triple tithing would likely be unique to Armstrongism. And tithing should actually be in the set of doctrine that shouldn't be kept, while freewill offerings would be in the should be kept set.<br />Hosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13285219921252563944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-23458876594583249862017-03-25T00:48:55.818-07:002017-03-25T00:48:55.818-07:00What kinds of Christians are you referring to, nck...What kinds of Christians are you referring to, nck? Baptists? Episcopalians? Mormons?<br /><br />BBByker Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15602697337552385535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-34387404581577955882017-03-24T23:07:40.018-07:002017-03-24T23:07:40.018-07:009.54 PM
Please supply the scripture (chapter and v...9.54 PM<br />Please supply the scripture (chapter and verse) that labels doubt as sin.<br />If you apply Gods laws over and over, the results gives confidence that Gods laws work. When people rarely apply Gods laws, they are riddled with doubts about its efficacy. I believe that its this 'doubt' that the bible condemns. The solution? Consistently obey Gods laws. You see this with the ministers. They believe Gods laws impractical, so revert to verbally bashing members, lying to them, slandering them, lording it over them, murderously twisting their minds, intimidating members etc etc. While at the same time, giving nice sounding sermons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-72455966113290024932017-03-24T23:02:01.658-07:002017-03-24T23:02:01.658-07:00BB
Movement vs Church: I need to examine that mor...BB<br /><br />Movement vs Church: I need to examine that more. Your argument is fair enough. I think that if the STP had succeeded to be implemented I would succumb immediately. But it never did. And so the movement remained a hodgepodge of debatable "personal interpretations" and biblical extracts. The diverse set of people all shared the 20th century history of destruction of empire, revolution, the rise of something aknew and global encompassing "peace".<br /><br />I don't think it was sold to you as a church. The first pitches on radio and tv were always "from the beautiful campus in Pasadens etc etc". Then you received "the Course". But I agree, baptism and rituals probably defined it as a church EVEN if that was denied in the strongest terms since "church" of course just meant "assembly of persons" according to "the movement" propelling "the Work." The STP would have finalized as a church, but it never was.<br /><br />Advance guard<br />Probably most people think that the Communist party just started existing with a set of dogma's. In fact it took over 60 years to develop toward the early 19t century and define themselves and the road to utopia. Especially the road to Utopia EXACTLY mirrors the Armstrong template or rather vice versa.<br /><br />Just one example finally resulting in Stalinism.<br />"While traditional Communist thought holds that the state will gradually "wither away" as the implementation of socialism reduces class distinction, Stalin argued that the state must become stronger before it can wither away." <br /><br /><br />Native Americans and Christians.<br />I was not talking about behavior or treatment by christians. Rather than accusing you of a straw man I will restate my question. I was asking a theological question on what, according to christian theology, happens to people 1500 BC in the America's or the Himalayas who never heard of any Christian or Jewish theology. What would be their fate within Christian doctrine?<br /><br />nck<br /><br /> nckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-57466752438975548232017-03-24T21:54:49.982-07:002017-03-24T21:54:49.982-07:00What's wrong with the bible, and why is it uns...What's wrong with the bible, and why is it unscientific? One of the clinchers for me was the scripture that says its a sin to doubt. "Whatever is not of faith is sin" But anyone with an open mind HAS to ask questions and HAS to have doubts. You can only get rid of doubts by thought stopping. In science you have to doubt accepted ideas or you can't make fundamental progress (the uninformed big bang lovers should learn something from that). This history of science is that of accepted dogmas being overthrown by the doubters on the despised fringe. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-1975156185319736202017-03-24T21:45:38.984-07:002017-03-24T21:45:38.984-07:00It's all about bringing out facts to counter o...It's all about bringing out facts to counter opinions, and if you do, by bringing facts, truth and data, you've ruined everything and you are committing a hate crime.<br /><br />So if you think the Constitution of the United States gives you some sort of entitlement to free speech, you will find yourself sorely in error and be branded a criminal guilty of hate crimes.<br /><br />And this is certainly true of the Armstrongist 1%ers who claim they are right and anyone who opposes them will be thrown into the Lake of Fire! <br /><br />They aren't conservatives at all -- they are liberals who don't want anyone anywhere to have any rights or freedoms, but rather to be subject to the Draconian dysfunctional oppression of the Armstrongist leadership in power to suck money from those who can earn it to give to those who sit around and don't do much of anything, except, of course, to generate quite a lot of hot air.<br /><br />And if you don't hew to the line, you will be silenced by being disfellowshipped, until, perhaps, they have more power and can put you to death.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-81142665421752494832017-03-24T21:26:43.052-07:002017-03-24T21:26:43.052-07:00Only one percent of American alive today are desce...Only one percent of American alive today are descended from former slave owners, yet the blacks want 100% of whites to pay reparations, and to pay to blacks who were never slaves or descended from slaves. So if you are white you are evil and if you are black you are a victim. And the blacks in africa who sold out the other black don't have to pay because they are blacks. That makes them part of the victim class. <br /><br />Sounds like racism to me. <br /><br />Nothing is about justice any more, it's all about making up excuses to extract money out of the people who do the heavy lifting. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-70487545198234377092017-03-24T19:19:44.606-07:002017-03-24T19:19:44.606-07:00Actually, I spent part of my morning with some Nat...Actually, I spent part of my morning with some Native American friends. <br /><br />Just as no US citizen living today has ever owned African slaves, Christianity today does not present a 1500s attitude towards Native Americans. And, nck, there you go with your strawman once again! Christians are a very diverse group. Those who lived in the 1500s were not monolithic. They did not have a singular unified attitude towards the Indians. Why try to make them into a strawman? That's like saying all Southerners are racists!<br /><br />BBByker Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15602697337552385535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-29205929840973742462017-03-24T19:09:26.344-07:002017-03-24T19:09:26.344-07:00No. He didn't. He derived some of his perspe...No. He didn't. He derived some of his perspectives from examples of social justice in the Bible, but made himself in the image of the powerful elite. Anyone whoever challenged him found themselves compared to Korah, who rebelled against the elite.<br /><br />BBByker Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15602697337552385535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-37325701823193486132017-03-24T19:04:04.082-07:002017-03-24T19:04:04.082-07:00But nck, it was presented to us as being "God...But nck, it was presented to us as being "God's True Church". The total and perfect solution to the pain, sufferings, and possibly even death which everyone else was scheduled to suffer in the end times.<br /><br />Do you honestly believe that renaming it a "movement" (actually I often did think of it as a movement, but believe me, you don't want to know what kind!) resolves anything? <br /><br />The hippies were a movement. Womens' liberation was a movement. Civil Rights was a movement. But, no matter how you examine or define it, the R/WCG was a church. It demands to be dissected and evaluated as a church. Churchly standards apply. <br /><br />BBByker Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15602697337552385535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-47550132185389750902017-03-24T18:11:19.539-07:002017-03-24T18:11:19.539-07:00Ian, Disagreeing with you isn't the equivalent...Ian, Disagreeing with you isn't the equivalent of being unkind. Two people can remain congenial and respectfully disagree with each other. I love and respect my father, but I strongly disagree with some of his theology. I respect your thoughtfulness, wide-ranging reading, earnestness and your ability to articulate your beliefs (that has not changed). I do, however, strongly disagree with your assertion that Armstrongism is the most reasonable expression of Christian theology.<br />You asked: "How do you know that Jesus Christ came down to redeem mankind from sin and death and that this is the most fundamental stuff of Scripture?" Let us lay aside the obvious scriptural references and look at the Bible as a whole. Do you agree that the God of the Bible was very concerned with defining sin and explaining its consequences to "His" people? Do you agree that the sacrificial system (involving the spilling of blood) was considered essential to forgiveness and reconciliation in the Hebrew Scriptures? Does the Day of Atonement picture the removal of the peoples sins and their reconciliation to God? Do you believe that all of that points to the person and work of Jesus Christ? Why did Jesus Christ live a sinless life and perfectly fulfill all of the requirements of the Mosaic Law? Why was his blood spilled? Why did he die on the cross? The answers to these questions points to something systemic - something bigger than a few proof-texts (which we could both supply).<br />If we leave Scripture out of the picture, we can ask some very fundamental philosophical questions: Do the concepts of good and evil have any validity? Is evil sin? Does God exist? If so, is God the source of good and evil, or at least the one who gets to define them? If there is such a thing as evil/bad/sinful behavior, does it have any discernible consequences for those who engage in it? Are there means/methods available to those of us who might engage in such behavior that could ameliorate/change the consequences/outcomes of such behavior?<br />Are questions about whether or not it is appropriate to celebrate holidays which may have pagan historical origins, and whether or not there are one, two or three individuals within the Godhead in the same league with the questions I just asked? And, how can we know that this kind of stuff wasn't central to early Christianity? If we could resurrect the Apostle Paul and ask him about the trinity, we'd have to explain the concept to him before he could give us an intelligent answer!<br />Finally, this argument is for believers. Do you think that the conversation which we're engaging in is going to be very meaningful to an atheist, Buddhist or Muslim? And I'm interested in what YOU believe - I know what Spong believes. Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-41506153172652105192017-03-24T17:31:45.288-07:002017-03-24T17:31:45.288-07:00Miller Jones
I just read in Matthew where Christ s...Miller Jones<br />I just read in Matthew where Christ said that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom. So your 'Christ will redeem us from our sins' by itself, can be misleading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-21332688390750065582017-03-24T17:11:53.035-07:002017-03-24T17:11:53.035-07:00And Hoss, it wouldn't have taken much.
Armstr...And Hoss, it wouldn't have taken much.<br /><br />Armstrongism just isn't that far from Scientology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com