Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Dear Brethren, We Realize You Are Too Stupid To Know How To Read, So Let Us Tell You How


How To Read: AC Correspondence Course 1970

In the Ambassador College Correspondence Course, Lesson 36, in 1970 - the Church told it's members and readers of the Correspondence Course how to read. Here's what they said: 

  • Don't waste time reading trashy novels filled with sex and filth. 
  • Don't read comic books filled with violence and gore. 
  • Choose profitable, useful, educational books. 
  • Choose books on history, ecology, pollution, the population explosion, and other world problems. 
  • Visit the non-fiction section of your local library. 
  • Read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Too Many, Famine - 1975, Our Precarious Habitat, The Hidden Persuaders
  • Read a weekly news magazine for reports on global affairs. 
  • Read books on getting things done like How To Get More Done in Less Time, The Technique of Getting Things Done, Streamlining Your Executive Workload
  • Read worthwhile books, magazines, and important news. 
After telling you WHAT to read, now they tell you HOW to read. 

  • Read with a purpose, not aimlessly. 
  • Concentrate.
  • Pause from time to time to summarize the material. 
  • Think about what you are reading. 
  • Read faster.
  • Skim unimportant sections and trivia. 
  • Take a reading course for faster reading. 
  • Mark the material. 
  • Underline the important sections. 
  • Put stars or asterisks in the margin. 
There. Now you can be perfectly assimilated on what to read and how to read it. Because you were never adult enough to make up your own mind or your own choices on reading. It was these doctrines that caused:

  • Parents to forbid fiction reading for children
  • Parents to think imagination or fantasy was wrong for children
  • Parents to forbid all comic books (even the tame ones!)
  • Married couples to be completely unimaginative and dull in the bedroom. 
  • The most marked up books ever found in Garage Sales ;) 
  • People to watch shows such as Wall Street Week or Washington Week in Review to fulfill their "watch" Obligations. 
Books they recommended: (Fear religion!) 


z
(Read the Reviews - Trash)

(Fearing Famine)

(Fearing the Germans)

submitted by SHT

Church of God Quality Control Form - Ministers



On a five grade level, A - F - Rate your minister on the following Biblical principles and qualifications for a Minister of Jesus Christ.

A = Yes, Absolutely
B = I Believe So, Mostly.
C = Nothing exceptional, or not sure.
D = He's pretty bad at this.
F = Absolutely not. 


The Pauline Principles (Titus 1:5-9)

1. Is your minister above reproach?

2. Does your minister have children who believe?

3. Is your minister the husband of one wife?

4. Has your minister been accused of rebellion?

5. Is your minister not self willed?

6. Is your minister not quick tempered?

7. Is your minister not addicted to wine (alcohol)?

8. Is your minister not pugnacious? ****

9. Is your minister not fond of sordid gain? *

10. Is your minister hospitable?

11. Does your minister love what is good?

12. Is your minister sensible?

13. Is your minister just?

14. Is your minister devout?

15. Is your minister self controlled?
Does your minister fit the criteria of "One who must be silenced"? (Removed from the ministry by their superiors) (Titus 1)

1. Is your minister upsetting whole families?

2. Is your minister an empty talker and a deceiver?

3. Is your minister rebellious?

4. Is your minister teaching things for the sake of sordid gain? *

5. Does your minister deny God by their deeds?

Does your minister exhibit the Fruits of the Spirit? 

1. Does your minister exhibit love?
2. Does your minister exhibit joy?

3. Does your minister exhibit patience?

4. Does your minister exhibit peace?

5. Does your minister exhibit kindness?

6. Does your minister exhibit goodness?

7. Does your minister exhibit faithfulness?

8. Does your minister exhibit gentleness?

9. Does your minister exhibit self control?

Does your minister adhere to the principles of Basic Christianity?

1. Is your minister sexually immoral?

2. Is your minister an idolater?

3. Is your minister an adulterer?

4. Is your minister sexually deviant?

5. Is your minister a thief?

6. Is your minister greedy?

7. Is your minister a drunkard?

8. Is your minister a reviler? **

9. Is your minister a swindler? ***
* Sordid: involving ignoble actions and motives; arousing moral distaste and contempt.

** Reviler: to criticize in an abusive or hostile way, or to spread negative information about.

*** Swindlers are scammers who con people to make a buck. (Google def. throughout)

**** Pugnacious: quick to argue, quarrel, or fight.



How did your minister do? 

What was your minister's average score? 

What does this tell you? 

How should you respond? 

If you were their superior, would you fire him/her? 

If you would fire him or her, do you not know you still can - by ceasing your relationship with a person not qualified to spiritually advise you? 

Words to think about.

Monday, December 10, 2018

Einstein and the COGs By Wes White


Einstein and the COGs
By Wes White

I recently stumbled across a fascinating quote from the genius, Albert Einstein.  Just before World War II, Einstein was contemplating the history of Europe.  He was watching as the continent was reverting back to the tribalism of the Dark Ages.  He foresaw a new tribalism developing.  Looking back, we now see that that tribalism caused the deaths of millions between 1939 and 1945.
            Einstein said:  
“When posterity recounts the achievements of Europe, shall we let men say that three centuries of painstaking cultural efforts carried us no farther than from religious fanaticism to the insanity of nationalism?”
            When I first read this, my mind immediately raced to the history of Armstrongism (which started around 1933) and to where it is today. 
            Before we examine whether or not Einstein’s observation might possibly be applied to the Armstrong movement, let me attempt to relate my definitions of terms. Because many of us have different definitions of terms.  And, while it is fine that we disagree on these definitions, we should at least understand where each of us is coming if we are going to be able to effectively communicate with each other.  
            When examining Armstrongism, the atheist’s view of “Armstrong fanatical teachings” would begin with things like a belief in God and belief in the Bible.  
Main stream Christianity might define “Armstrong’s fanatical beliefs” as the seventh-day Sabbath and anti-Trinitarianism. 
            My personal definition of “Armstrong fanatical teachings” goes something like this. HWA learned what I believe were good teachings from Church of God Seventh Day.  He picked up sound doctrines such as the seventh-day Sabbath, soul sleep, no immortality of the soul, no ever-burning suffering in hell, no going to heaven, rejection of pagan holidays, etc.  
            But then Armstrong ADDED to that body of teachings.  He added things like Petra place of safety, the Gospel has not been preached for 1900 years, end-time apostleship, anti-doctor/anti-medicine/anti-science, banning interracial dating, three-tithe system, ban on voting, ban on military service, headline theology, etc.  To me, these ADDITIONS comprise “Armstrong fanatical teachings.”  I do not consider CG7’s teachings to be part of “Armstrong fanatical teachings.” 
            Again, you may very well disagree with my definition.  I just want you to know where I am coming from in this post. 
            So, when I look at the evolution of the beliefs of so many who are (or were) followers of Armstrongism, I find that Einstein’s quote aptly describes the transition of beliefs of some of the Armstrongites.  I say this because so many of those who once embraced Armstrong’s fanatical teachings have now moved on to a new love.  
And it is only instinctively that they understand that Armstrong’s fanatical teachings were hollow.  Even to themselves, they can’t openly admit that Armstrong’s additions (his fanatical teachings) had no substance.  Pride seems to keep them from acknowledging that, while they were immersed in these teachings, they were only on a sugar high. 
Today, these folks have found a new sugar high in politics!  The religious fanaticism of HWA has been relegated to a mere secondary love for them now.  Their first love is now politics!  And all of this is clearly demonstrated when you read their current church writings, hear their current sermons, and listen to their conversations before and after Sabbath services. 
 They have not so much replaced their love of religious fanaticism as much as they have replaced its PRIMACY with their new love of politics… and nationalism.  Granted, this is not the state of affairs in all offshoots of Armstrongism.  I believe this change does not ***officially***  exist in UCG or COGWA, even though many of their members embrace it.  (Yes, I personally know some UCG and COGWA members who are part of this new belief system.)   Aside from UCG and COGWA, which officially reject this phenomenon, it does indeed exist in a lot of the Armstrong break-away churches. 
            Now let’s do a disclaimer. 
            Our current President openly embraces nationalism.  This is a fact.  
And many of the Armstrongites are fervent Trump supporters.  This is a fact.  Yes, they enthusiastically embrace Trump’s version of American nationalism. 
            Now, let’s be even more clear.  I am not condemning this.  I am apolitical.  I don’t take sides in secular politics.  I don’t even vote.  So I am not placing any value on Trump’s version of American nationalism.  I refuse to say whether it’s good or bad.   And I do not put a value on the political leanings of anyone.
            Instead, I merely try to make observations.  And I believe I am being accurate when I say that many of the current and former Armstrongites have embraced Trump’s American version of nationalism and that this new political fervor now takes precedence over their Armstrong religious fanaticism. 
            With all of the above in mind (again, without necessarily placing any value on the following), I believe we can paraphrase Einstein and ask the question below about the Armstrong COG movement:
            “When posterity recounts the achievements of the Armstrong COGs, shall men say that decades of painstaking Bible study, prayer, and fellowship carried them no farther than from religious fanaticism to the insanity of nationalism?”
            Again, I am only asking a question.  Perhaps we are too close to the situation to be able to make an accurate assessment at this time.  Perhaps we won’t know the answer until 50 or 100 years from now.  I certainly don’t profess to have the answer.  But I do believe it sure can’t hurt for us to have a civil conversation about this.  
            Please feel free to write me.  Wdwhite49@yahoo.com