Robert Ardis On the Jews, GTA, HWA, and Petra

In all the weird things that have been said over the years by various splinter cult leaders of Armstrongism I have never heard the following comment before.  It is by Robert Ardis who runs Church of God's Faithful.  In his Midnight Cry rag he writes:

In Mr. Ted Armstrong’s message so long ago, he was
describing in his inimitable manner the plight of the European Jews in the
late 30’s and early 40’s as they were first subjected to Adolf Hitler’s and
Heinrich Himmler’s final solution.

Mr. Armstrong stated that if a forceful warning message and vivid mental
pictures could have been given them of the atrocities that lay directly
ahead for the Jewish people in the Warsaw ghetto and the death camps
of Dachau, Buchenwald, and Auschwitz et al—and if they had heeded
that warning—they could have escaped that most horrible time where
SIX MILLION Jews, men women, and children perished in the gas chambers
and ovens and other evil means of mass-murder by which they died!
Mr. Armstrong very passionately exclaimed; “they would have come and
‘kissed the feet’ of those who delivered the warning message”!

The message that is being delivered here is that if the Jews had heard the warning message from a true church leader i.e., GTA/HWA then they would not have went onto the death camps but instead would be kissing Herb's and Ted's feet for giving them such a warning.

The things that come out of Armstrongites continue to amaze me.

Of course this is coming from the same ministurd that is declaring that Petra is NOT the place of safety but is Mt Sinai (Mt Horeb) in Saudi Arabia.

Can you imagine a bunch of Armstrongites marching into Saudi Arabia with Bible in one hand and a copy of Mystery of the Ages in the other.  Can you imagine the reception they will receive!  Of course I probably forget that the Saudis would be so in awe of the Armstrongites that they would bow to them all as the true people of God.

Moses fled from Pharaoh into Midian (Ex 2:15). Forty years later, Moses and the slave Nation of Israel fled from Pharaoh (Ex. 14:5). God led them by a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day (Ex. 13:21-22). God brought them completely OUT of EGYPT on the last Day of Unleavened Bread. The huge multitude of Israelites, men, women, and children, their flocks and herds were miraculous brought to SAFETY by the Eternal God. They crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aquaba---and entered the Land of Midian---Saudi Arabia of today!

Ardis goes on to write for all you disbelieving heretical Laodicians out here:

To date, the CGF has new knowledge that no other group embraces. This knowledge is often blatantly rejected.

Notice God’s stern warning to those who insist on discrediting or resisting God’s knowledge:

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee… (Hos. 4:6).

These are strong uncompromising words from God the Father! If we reject any of His knowledge, we will not be ‘kept from the hour of temptation’. It’s as simple as that!

Once more we get to see the fear factor of of Armstrongism at work.  Scare the shit out of people to keep them in line.  Reject Ardi's bullshit and your salvation is at risk!

I reject the crap of Ardis and have absolutely NOTHING to fear from his weak, irrelevant, impotent little god.

Van Robison on "Biblical" Archaeology

"Biblical" Archaeology

I am not sure that it is humanly possible to not have bias.  Archaeology is a field in which there are obvious highly emotional and intense feelings about the past.  I know that at one time Ambassador College was involved in a Archaeology dig in the Middle East.  Ambassador College or perhaps the Worldwide Church of God spent a considerable amount of money to shovel dirt according to "The Painful Truth, Ambassador Report,  Ambassador College's Participation in Jerusalem Dig Ends."

I seriously doubt that "evidence" unearthed really validates much of the "Old" Testament as many proclaim.  Naturally there is a vested interest in archaeology and it not only applies to the Middle East, but other areas around the world as well.  Everyone with a vested interest is naturally going to "validate" their cherished beliefs through ancient writings, archaeology or by whatever means.  On the other hand there is always that other point of view, such as that of Thomas L. Thompson and his book "The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel."  In "World Ages Archive.com",  Daniel Lazare (Harper's Magazine, March 2002) penned "False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History."

Those who write articles or books and make claims such as Thomas L. Thompson and Daniel Lazare (and there are many more), are always ripped to shreds.  Voices on both sides of an issue have their reasons for
what they believe is "truth."  On the other side of the coin are people like William F. Albright who is supposedly an "expert" on Biblical archaeology.  William F. Albright is also taken to task by those who oppose his conclusions found in dirt and his methods by which he comes to his conclusions.  I have the personal sense that some people find "evidence" for "Old" (cobwebs and all) Testament validation in every shovel full of dirt they turn over.

It is said that FAKE "Biblical" relics have been produced and have found their way into museums around the world and of course at great $expense to the "history" museums.  So a court says the relics are "valid", but does that make them really valid?  What if the court also has a vested interest?  Then what?  Should we believe just because someone says something is "true?"  I think those of us who have learned the hard way that voices who say something is "true" according to what they say is "true", have learned from experience, that there is valid reason to doubt and to question and never assume something is "true" just because someone says it is.

When we read that "archaeology proves Old Testament history is true", does that then make it so?  In regard to the flood of Noah, there are voices that make the assertion that the worldwide flood is "true" and on the other hand there are voices, which to my thinking are much more believable, that say the worldwide flood never happened and the "ark" of Noah is pure myth.  In our modern world there are innumerable authors who write FICTION and their books are found in book stores the world over.  There are also movie producers who manufacture fictional moves such as "Star Wars" and so what makes ancient writers all authors of "true history" as opposed to fictional stories?

Are we really to believe that a young man with a sling and a stone, killed a giant called "Goliath", while all the highly trained military men cowered in fear?  Who would really believe that in the modern world, a non-military man could possibly come to the forefront of the military and be a champion?  It would not be possible.  Who would believe that because a man called Sampson had long hair, that was the source of his strength and when he was seduced by a woman who cut his hair, his supernatural strength vanished?  Of course the "Old" Testament is overrun with such stories, that are more like "Little Red Riding Hood" and "The Three Little Pigs" that we all know are fairy tales.  Why do millions believe these stories as if God was the author?  Is the reality that men have created God in their own fictional stories?

Some people never learn.  Even in the courts of "law" there have many who were innocent and yet suffered, because the courts said they were "guilty."  We all lean toward what we want to believe and we may or may not be right.  Yet still, it is better to question and never take for granted that something is true, just because someone or voices say something is true.  All ex-Worldwide Church of God people know beyond doubt that they were deceived and so from that experience. why should anyone believe that "archaeology proves the O.T. is true?"  Anyone with a vested interest will always make assertions that may have fatal flaws.  Personally I doubt that anyone knows where the tomb of Jesus was or is.  I doubt that anyone really knows the absolute truth about the many questions regarding the pyramids.  Tourism brings a great deal of $money into the pockets of those who promote "sacred" places.


Van Robison

Van Robison: "Fear Is A Tool"

FEAR IS A TOOL

The Bible is chalk full of FEAR.  The Bible even says to "fear God" and at the same time it says that "there is no fear in love."  Contradiction?  Yes, to those of us who think, but not to Bible apologists, who move heaven and earth to defend the indefensible.  If God is LOVE, then why would He expect His human creation to live in FEAR of Him?  Perhaps a better alternative is to respect God, because He is really about LOVE, although the Bible in many parts portrays Him abysmally otherwise.

In the story about Ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts, we read that God supposedly struck these two people down dead at the feet of Peter, over $money matters and lying.  This story is pure fiction!  If it really did happen, then God could not possibly be responsible.  Why is that so?  Simply because it so contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ, that it makes no sense.  In another account in the Gospels, we read that two of the disciples of Jesus wanted to call down fire out of heaven and consume some folks that they had issues with, to which Jesus rebuked them saying that He (Jesus Christ) came NOT to destroy the lives of men, but to SAVE.  How is it possible that Jesus could teach "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "love your neighbor as you love yourself", "blessed are the peacemakers", "blessed are the meek", "love your enemies", "turn the other cheek" and so forth and at the same time, strike down Ananias and Sapphira at the feet of Peter???  It is absurd!

I have an answer.  The answer is God did NOT do it, but someone wrote that He did.  Men have always placed words in the mouth of God that He never spoke, and attributed events to God that God is not responsible for.  The flood of Noah and the ark for example (another fairy tale).  We all know that the Roman Catholic Church traces (falsely) its origin to Peter, and does anyone sense that there must be suspicion surrounding the fable of Ananias and Sapphira as attributed to God?  Perhaps religious leaders and rulers have always wanted common people to live in FEAR of their false authority, and fear that they might just contract leprosy or cancer or something if they do not obey the rulers.  Perhaps "Pope Peter" was NOT the fisherman that Jesus hand picked to be a witness about Him, but is a fictional character.

A very similar fable is found in the Old Testament where we read that Korah and those with him, including the women, innocent children and babies were swallowed up by the earth opening up under their feet, because Korah and certain men with him voiced opinions contrary to Moses.  It is attributed to God, as are many other myths and legends of lying scribes.  If Jesus Christ is indeed the same yesterday, today and forever, then there is no possible way that Jesus Christ was also God of the Old Testament as so many proclaim.  The contradictions on display in the writings called "the Bible" are so glaring that even a cave man can see them.  Even a dinosaur must know that there are issues with the so called "Bible" that make no sense.  Apparently cave men are more discerning than modern day Bible apologists, who come unglued when challenged over Bible foolishness.

In Romans 13 the reader is led to believe that rulers of men are "not a terror to good works, but to the evil" and of course consequently "obey the rulers, because they are so concerned about your welfare, that they keep a close watch for your protection and security."  HOGWASH!  History is awash with the horrors of rulers who have slaughtered the innocents of life by the countless millions.  In fact, if indeed rulers were not a terror to good works, but to the evil only, then Jesus Christ would never have been crucified, because He was nothing but GOOD.  Anyone who has read a little history knows how insane many rulers of nations have been and how they have been responsible for the horrible deaths of their own family members, as well as millions of others that they considered their "enemies."  How then can anyone believe that God "inspired" words such as "obey those who have the rule over you?"  Do we obey terrorists in power?

Naturally the Worldwide Church of God and its disfigured offspring teach that it is God who expects the common people to "obey" their false authority.  The same is true of all human governments who proclaim "its the law", which of course are "laws" of those who control.  The churches and governments are twins, because they both demand obedience upon threat that "its the law."  Natural laws of physics such as gravity are in place and we all know they are real.  However the "laws" of men and of religions of men are penned in INK on PAPER and are about as useful as newspapers for starting a fire.  Humans are forever making "laws", which gives them the excuse to control and snatch your money from your pocketbook.  Of course as with most things in life, the rulers exclaim that it is for your "good", your "protection", "your security" and "your well being."  Hee haw!!!


Van Robison

Larry McElroy: "SUCH GARBAGE WAS DUMPED ON THE MINISTRY!"

The latest Restored Church of God minister that has had a "mind washing" is Larry McElroy.  He has his own version of  his escape from being blinded by subtle demonic doctrines and teachings in WCG and UCG.

What shocked him the most about WCG was that Tkach Sr. made this comment:

“The sign of true Christians is faith in Christ, not keeping the annual festivals. So, like the Sabbath, we keep the festivals to celebrate salvation in Christ”

McElroy writes:

SUCH GARBAGE WAS DUMPED ON THE MINISTRY! Where was the outrage? I pounded my fist on my desk when I read this!

What's really outrageous that a man who claims to be a "christian" is outraged that some one tells him that the sign of a true Christian is that they have faith in Christ.  McElroy would rather be doing something, law keeping, sabbath keeping, not wearing earrings, not having his wife wear make up, etc, rather than just having faith in Christ.  Anyone religious or not knows that the sign of a Christian is that they have faith in Christ.  Yet the idiots in far right-field Armstrongism are too dumb to see that.

Later the behavior of numerous ministers’ children was like a kick in the stomach, with some marrying outside the Church. How could this be (ll Cor. 6:14-18)? The results were inevitable—several went back to the world, keeping Christmas and other pagan holidays, and never returned to the WCG. Next, the dress code went into a nose dive—long hair and earrings for men and revealing outfits and make-up for girls—all done to accommodate the world!

McElroy then like all rats on sinking ships, jumps  to United Church of God, where he is looking to be disgusted again.  Of course they immediately find all kinds of things wrong:

My first meeting with UCG pastors and elders was in 1995. An evangelist, now leader of UCG, came to Phoenix. A meeting was held with the pastors, local church elders and a few deacons—a large group, as Phoenix had three UCG congregations. The evangelist asked for questions. The first came quickly from a pastor: “When do we get a raise?” I couldn’t believe my ears—after all that had happened, this was crude! But it was also very telling—the word “hireling” comes to mind. Where was the love for the brethren? Where was the desire to lead God’s people to safety? Later in the meeting, finances were discussed. After some discussion, I raised my hand and commented, “Mr. Armstrong said we should prepare to lower our standard of living.” That comment was the “lead balloon” of the day!

Later my wife and I attended the 2nd and 3rd conferences of UCG, held in Cincinnati, OH, and Louisville, KY, respectively. Our first conference had to some degree a Feast-like atmosphere, but it featured wrong government, voting, politicking and coveting for power. Several major questions were asked: “How soon before we get insurance? How soon do we have retirement?”

What an outrage!

He goes on:

At the 1996/7 UCG conferences, we witnessed several things that were mind-boggling, but they seemed to faze no one:

• Those nominated to be on the Council of Elders posted resumes including their titles and accomplishments, and why they would be good for the position.

• After the 1996 elections, one newly elected council member came by us and said in a loud voice and with raised arms, “hey, we won—let’s go out and celebrate!” I couldn’t believe my ears. I Iooked at my wife; she looked at me—how could anyone treat such a responsibility so superficially, so flamboyantly?

• Voting to change church doctrine became an option

• The designation of a “Home Office,” not a “Headquarters.”

Isn't it outrageous that that called their HQ a Home Office instead of a Headquarters?  How STUPID can these COG people get!  So I guess that because Pack calls his church HQ a Headquarters then that's what makes them a true church?  How stupid!

He ends with:

We got it! The adventure of a lifetime began—the journey to find the true Church of God. We were yet to wander in a toxic spiritual wilderness for some time. There were many lessons for us to learn—even unlearn. But eventually we arrived “back home.”

Today, an increasing number are returning to the full Truth they once loved. They see the dramatic difference between The Restored Church of God and the splinter groups. They see the unity of purpose and doctrinal purity found nowhere else. They see God’s hand in His one, undivided unified Church.

"Everything is glorious in Restored Church of God.  We have the worlds largest and fastest growing Church of God.  We have the ONLY end time Apostle as leader, we call our headquarters a HEADQUARTERS instead of the wimpy, effeminate Home Office, we talk about law all the time, we anoint our eyes, WE ARE THE BEST!"

Like all the other moronic letters written on Pack's corny blog for defecting Church of God ministers, there is no mention of Jesus. Jesus is irrelevant to the law.  Not wearing make-up, not voting, not marrying outside the church, and law keeping carry far more weight than Jesus does.

You can read this rather boring and sad letter that truly says nothing worthwhile here:

A Group Started on the Wrong Foundation—Another Voice Speaks Out

Dennis On: "Are not..." "Are too..."

"My eyes are anointed..."

"No!  My eyes are anointed..."

"Are not..."

"Are too..."

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, 

and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Matthew 16:18

Now there is a scripture that has launched a hundred thousand churches if ever there was one! 

Aside from my suspicion this text has been inserted years after the fact to support a much more mature set of practices and beliefs than any Jesus in Matthew would have had in mind, every COG leans heavily on this scripture to know without a shadow of a doubt, the Church they are is the Church the author of Matthew meant and put in the mouth of Jesus.

I'm pretty sure Jesus never had the concept of himself building any church. Jesus either thought he would not die and God would rescue him in the nick of Roman time, or if not, he would return immediately, or perhaps the "Son of Man" would, who he may or may not have thought of as himself, and kick the collective Roman ass once and for all.  Sadly, and of course, we know how that worked out.  

My personal regret about this scripture is that Jesus, who wrote NOTHING himself evidently, but is quoted here never went on to define what that Church would look like.  What would its beliefs and realities be?  What would it teach?  Who would get to have the final say?  Would it be a Jewish Christian perspective as Peter, James and John would have found correct, or would it be the Gentile Church as understood by the Apostle Paul?  If you believe these two groups "all spoke the same thing," or had the same one truth and Gospel, you are not doing your homework.  

The Gospel of Paul, with his Cosmic Christ and the soon coming "Son of Man" in a Jewish context were not the same Gospel message.  The Book of Galatians is clear that these men were at odds with each other and not on the same page.  Paul cursed those who brought another Gospel than the one Paul thought up and he was talking about the Jerusalem leadership, who Paul defined as "however, in all men is not that knowledge")  He even called them "reputed to be pillars" but went on to say that they added nothing to his own Gospel and actually he learned nothing from them.  When Paul chided Peter for his turn around in the presence of "those from James,"  it sounds like Peter was the bad guy and not near as mature as Paul.  In fact, in my view, Peter recognized at this meal that Paul had no intention of going along with the Acts 15 directives to place the Noahide rules on those who wished, as gentiles to become Christians.  I believe Peter probably noticed Paul was serving not unclean meats but meat offered to idols which Paul is said originally to have agreed not to do in Acts 15.  In I Corinthians 8 we see that Paul considered that view as "weak" and had no intention of teaching it in fact. 

In short, Paul was a liar and two faced in just the same way he accused Peter of being.  The reason Paul comes out looking so good and Peter so bad is that we only have Paul's story and really a dummied down version of that. We don't have Peter's view or a description of exactly what Peter found to be a problem with Paul's table.  Paul gets to brag about his bravely getting in Peter's face over the issue and "winning."  Peter gets to say nothing.  

So back to the original concept of Church building.  How nice it would have been had Jesus taken a few moments to outline exactly what that Church would look like.  But since he probably neither thought about it in reality or actually said these words added years later when there was a version of the "one true Church" up and running already, we can never know.  Jesus would not have known what his Church would look like because he never considered the concept.  Like bearing one's cross, the concept was a product of another time and the priests of those times were not unwilling to put words in Jesus or Peter or Paul's mouth to justify their current practices, when there actually was a Church.   

So we can see, and the NT is full of evidence that Peter was not to be followed according to John who thought him to be no better than Judas.  In a process called "Intercalation", the author of John always sandwiches a negative comment about Simon Peter between negative comments about Judas, Son of Simon.  While we miss the point, the readers of the day would have understand that Peter was no better than Judas and was the baloney between the two slices of Judas.  

We also have the sarcastic story of Peter , who said he would do one thing, (never leave Jesus) and did another, (Denied him) killing off Ananias and Sapphira who said they would do one thing (Give all) and did another, (held back).  We miss the point today but the audience of Luke and Paul would have clearly understood the sarcasm and humor behind it sending the message not to follow Peter the Judas and hypocrite. Peter denies...Judas betrays...no difference!

The Book of James , asking how you can have faith without works to show the faith in action and Paul's Book of Romans which makes great fun of works of any kind proving anything are not the same Gospel.   While the COG's try to see both men speaking the same thing, they really are speaking the opposite.  

Today in Fundamentalist Christianity in general and the COG's in particular the war designed to see which version of the True Church is the True Church wages on. 

Its a Church version of "I'm Spartacus...No, I'm Spartacus...oh no your not, I'm Spartacus!"   It's both funny and sad but also confusing and harmful to those that feel that their job in life is to discern EXACTLY which one of these competing views is the right view of Jesus and God.  Ok, and the Holy Spirit too.  

But I will say it again.  Never in the history of whoever and whatever Jesus said, did, meant and taught has there ever been one true church.  There was not one to be found in the New Testament either.  What you find is a smaller more focused battle between the Jewish version of Peter, James and John and the Gentile version of the Apostle come lately Paul.  

It is no accident that Paul, who never met any earthly Jesus or quoted him ever because for Paul, Jesus was a cosmic hallucinatory version in his head, while the Gospels, written long after Paul died, are the bringing his Jesus down to earth version.  For Paul, Christ died in the heavens and was killed by demons and spirits while for the Gospel writers the Romans, oops, the Jews killed the earthly version.  They are not the same story.  They are not the same concept.  They are not the same Gospel.  And there never was one true coherent, all speaking the same thing Church of God EVER.

In my opinion, the Apostle Paul was the false prophet proven false by the Ephesian Church (home of John?) that was tried and found wanting in Revelation.  Vespasian was the Beast.  None of it has anything to do with today. It is what Paul was getting at when he noted "all those in Asia have turned away...may God not lay it to their charge."  Ephesus is in Asia.  All of them found Paul to be one donut short of a dozen and they all sent him on his way.  Paul, in his typical way, never seemed to ask why?  He merely noted that they were all wrong and he was still right and he hoped God did not hold it too hardly against the Ephesians.  However, the Jesus of Revelation assured the Ephesians that they had done a good thing by telling them "well done," so guess who won that argument?  The topics was the Ephesians finding certain Apostles to be found wanting.  They weren't talking about the original 12 you can be sure.  

Also, we have to note that of the 24 times Paul is called an Apostle in the NT, Paul calls himself one 22 of those times with Luke, his biographer adding the other 2. Seems no one else but Paul thought he was a genuine Apostle.  Kinda like today with the competing true Apostles telling their churches "and yes brethren, I am an Apostle,"  but no one outside that organization believing that to be true in any way.  Paul made himself an Apostle and said that Jesus and God did it.  He had to say Jesus and God because you can't prove that and no others humans were buying it.  It's kinda like saying that if the Apostle is wrong, God will correct him, not you or I.  But really, who would say such a stupid thing in real life?  :)

So for those of you who still struggle with seeking the one true and exactly right Church of God.....RELAX!  There isn't one.  Never has been and never will be.  There will always be many versions both similar and so very different from each other that are the one true church.   Don't stress over to eat or not to eat out on the Sabbath.  Forget about Moons and Moon Pies.  Don't feel obligated to go along with any man who says he and his wife are the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 or this, that or any other prophet.  I mean really...what's the chance? 

The most amazing True Churches of God are really not all that amazing and the moment the guru dies, you are going to be back in the mud wondering if anything is ever going to work out in your lifetime.  Lighten up.  Don't fret about days and dates, time is short or the night being far spent.  2000 years is really a long time for time is short and the Book of Revelation being written to "show the things which must shortly come to pass," so long ago now.  Revelation is true. It really did try to show the things which would shortly come to pass in the 70's AD.  It was just wrong and the Romans won.  The brethren it was meant to encourage either ran for their lives or died on the spot on the ends of Roman swords.  That's what really happened and what really came to pass.

Personally, if I am wrong and ever get to speak to a genuinely resurrected Jesus or God, I am going to ask why they did not make these most important topics more clear.  I mean if it determines our eternal lives, should the gods leave any of that in the hands of humans to get right in the translation?  I think not.  I am going to mention that faith seems to be what is required but then along come the facts and ....well, things change. 

I'd like to ask why they did not write anything down themselves.  Even the Buddha wrote much and all the great writers of the day, some of whom actually lived just down the street at the right time, never seemed to notice the events spoken of in the Gospels. Maybe they were at a writer's convention and out of town for that year (according to Matthew, Mark and Luke)  or three years, (John). 

At any rate, whatever "more correct,"  "more true," or  "the original" Church of God means is up for grabs and debate. I do know that the Church of Brotherly love today seems hateful and nuts.  The Church that has restored has really just copied not true either stuff.  The Church that is United is terribly divided.  The Church that is alive seems small and dying.  And the true church that is a mere remnant is ...well, not all that impressive and can't get their message down the street, much less to all the world.

Relax...Take a deep breath.  You don't have to struggle over which organization, Apostle or view of scripture is the exact right one.  It does not exist.  It NEVER has, not in the pages of your Bible nor in present day reality.  It never will.  

While everything you see today in the COGs is very much, if not exactly what we see in the New Testament Church and its leadership doing and being exactly what we see in the NT,  I don't mean that in the way you might think.  

Dennis C
DenniscDiehl@aol.com

Andrew On: "What’s the Difference Between “Good” and “Godly”?"

What’s the Difference Between “Good” and “Godly”?

One time I went to a bible study where the minister spoke for an hour or so about the difference between being “Godly” and being merely “good.” He was essentially arguing that everyone who was not in “God’s True Church,” their “goodness” was of “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” while ours was “Godliness,” because as faithful followers, we were all partaking of “The Tree of Life.” During the course of laying out his argument, he made several ludicrous statements that left many people other than me also scratching their heads and asking some pointed followup questions. Now that I look back on it, I realize that by picking that topic, he was forcing himself into a position in which he would have to say a few ludicrous things because he was trying to prove something that wasn’t true.

I was raised in the theory, and believed for so many years, that because I was raised in WCG by parents who were faithful believers, that their children are therefore sanctified, as Paul says:

1Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

And then, when I was baptized, so the theory went, I had to have the holy spirit, if for no other reason than because that is what the bible said God had promised. I had followed all the rules, just the way HWA and the bible said.

In time, I had to begin to admit to myself that I had no empirical evidence to suggest that this theory was true. When I talked to other people about my inability to confirm this theory with any sort of experience of power or help that might be associated with the presence of the holy spirit, they would say things like, "that's everyone's experience."

Finally, I had to admit that it made no sense for me to believe that I had the holy spirit. The real world told me that I was not who church leaders told me I was. We were not "God's people." "God's True Church" was just a social club of people with rich imaginations united by a generous helping of gullible. (Now, I just hate it whenever I hear people say "God's" anything, because I know that what I'm hearing is a lie being repeated by a stupid person who is willing to believe in anything for no reason.)

It doesn't matter where you put the holes, whether you attribute them to HWA, Church of God Seventh Day, some other broken link in the chain, or even the bible itself, it doesn't change the fact that I believed, I played by the rules, and God did not honor the promises that people, including Apostle Paul, told me He would. If God isn't delivering on things promised during this lifetime, then why should He be expected to deliver on things promised for after I die? Tilt. Train wreck. Full stop. End of story.

There are plenty of good, moral, and ethical people in the world who don't believe in God. I am just tired of the idea that all those decent people are “evil,” “lost” or “deceived” simply because they don’t believe in the social club, the rituals, the afterlife, etc. I am tired of the idea that I am somehow “better,” “special” or “holy” because I have performed the rituals and believed that God was working with me (even though He wasn’t). If there is an afterlife, can’t I just believe when I get there? Why should believing without any reason to so all-important? Can’t I just be honest about all of this? Why can’t it be good enough to be merely “good”?

What is the difference between being “Godly” and being merely “good”? In one case, I am deceived, superstitious, and elitist, in the other I am just a regular guy trying to do what is right. Either with or without an iPhone and a Prius (in my case, without). Hmm.  How about, can we just agree that religious people don’t have a monopoly on being deceived, superstitious, and elitist? And therein lies my point: there aren’t any real differences. We’re all just people who are trying to do what is right in our own eyes, even if we have radically different ideas about what is good and what is right.

The truth is, merely “good” is all I’ve ever been. I have no room for the baggage, the elitism, and the superstition anymore. All of that stuff just gets in my way. The idea that I was ever anything more than merely “good” was an illusion that was pawned off on me from before I was old enough to sort out the lies from the fiction. Maybe merely “good” without all that other crap is actually better than with it. It’s certainly more honest.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that there is plenty of wisdom in the bible, and in many other religions and philosophies of the world too. The problem is, I think that because life is as complicated as it is, religion gets complicated too, perhaps overcomplicated. But maybe it shouldn’t. Maybe religion ought to be a simplifying force instead. The whole point of religion is to help us make sense out of life. Making sense out of life implies allowing us to see it in simpler terms. For thousands of years, the simplifying aspects of religion has been conveying peaceful wisdom, while the complicating aspects have been drawing people out into the battlefields. I don’t see why religion itself is not of “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.”

So, what is the simple wisdom? Be honest with yourself. Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Deal with each other in good faith. Be optimistic about others. Fall in love with humanity, warts and all.

Why can’t this be good enough? Can’t we just let all the other baggage go? All it does is complicate things and makes it more difficult to live up to any of the simple, yet profound stuff.

-Andrew

Will Wanton Women Be The Downfall of the True Church?

Only in Armstrongism and Sabbatarianism will this kind of thinking be found.  Weird, weird people!

Out of 6,000 years of human history since Adam: Only 144,000 firstfruits! My mathematics says. This is an average of 24 firstfruits a year.

If the seven Churches of Rev are the firstfruits, for arguments sake say Christ returns 2,000 years after starting to preach. This is an average of 72 firstfruits a year.

Say half of them are called during the last 50 years; this would mean 1440 firstfruits a year.

As most the people called in this generation have fallen away. Will this mean a new work to replace them?

More scriptures on the Firstfruits:

These are a very special people indeed.  Will they be tried with Women? / False Churches? Will they be tried with following the Lamb?

Will they be tried to have guile in their mouths?

Rev 14:4  These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Van Robison On "The Foundation of Man-Made Religions"

Fred Coulter's Armstrongite Bible

The Foundation of Man-Made Religions

As a reader one thing anyone can learn from reading from a wide range of sources, is that no matter what you say, there are always those who will differ.  This is natural and what a dull world if every human being thought exactly alike.  I have read on the websites of many who have the belief that "the Bible is infallible and inerrant" and is "totally inspired by God."  The "Holy" books of all the religions of the world are in fact the primary source and foundation that have fueled a world of division, antagonism, elitism and a host of other human problems.  I suppose if we had been born on Mars and it was inhabitable and we were brought up believing in a book called "The Writings", which was a collection of writings from "prophets" and "prophetesses" of other inhabitable planets and which found their way to Mars, then that is what the common people would accept as "truth."  In that book of "The Writings", it may say "all these writings are given by inspiration of God" and that would seal it for many who would forever believe that indeed God was the author.

The world is full of theologians, "scholars" and believers in the Bible, who think the Bible itself "proves" that it is the word of God.  If indeed God is not the author of confusion, you have to scratch your head and wonder how the world is so divided into so many different interpretations of the Bible and thus innumerable churches and major religious beliefs.  The general excuse is "well those who don't believe as we do, just don't understand the Bible."  Yeah sure!  Some people have been highly offended when I told them that the church world is full of Bible worshipers, who think the Bible is God.  They always have a retort to "God is not the Bible and the Bible is not God."  God is not ink on paper, but not only do millions of churchians seem to think so, but so also do other religious groups who think their "Holy" books are God also.  Religious minded people love to quote passages from their "sacred" writings, which is their source that supposedly validates what they believe.

As far as the Worldwide Church of God and its offspring are concerned, their view of the Bible is peculiar to the interpretation of Herbert and their leaders.  This is of course true of all groups and no one is convinced that anything that differs with their views is acceptable.  I have emailed several splinter groups or their representatives in the past and expressed a few views, and the general reply is silence, but also a time or two---hostility. People simply do not want their comfort zone rocked.  I agree that it is unsettling to be told that the Saturday Sabbath has nothing to do with salvation or eternal life, or material blessings for observing it, if you have been indoctrinated that it is paramount.

Most people have had the idea of Bible infallibility so pounded into their thinking for so many years, that to even entertain that their "Holy" book is full of holes is unthinkable.  To question or challenge the Bible is tantamount to questioning God Himself and so to them, it is off limits.  In the Old Testament anyone who picked up sticks on the Sabbath was to be put to death, and no one who can reason would believe that this represents the God of love, portrayed by Jesus Christ.  And yet millions say "the Bible is totally inspired by God."  Surely something is intrinsically wrong with a book that is the foundational source that causes some people to believe that they have rights to your property by force, or that they can kill the men and women and children in conquest and save the virgins for themselves.  Writings that purport to enslave people to rulers of men, must have been penned by aliens, but not by God.  Giving a priest class of people "right" to your pocketbook, because they represent God on earth is far fetched.  The clergy class of "professional" Bible-thumpers are naturally ecstatic, because they can pick out passages in "The Writings" that give them status and free money at your expense.

I wonder how many more thousands of years will pass before people the world over come to their senses about "The Writings?"  We know instinctively the basics of right and wrong without having to read it in ink on paper, scrolls or on papyrus.  Don't we all know that it is wrong to murder your next door neighbor?  Do we need a "licensed" preacher to stand in a pulpit and tell us this?  Who were all these dead men, who penned "The Writings" and attributed them to God?  Were they LYING SCRIBES with an agenda to control the world and pocket a treasure chest full of coins, compliments of their sheep-like followers?  How do "The Writings" identify the splinter groups of the WWCG as the "one and only true church of God" on earth?  I guess some people believe in magic.


Van Robison

Dad of the Year!

UCG Afraid of Muslim Persecution In Europe?

An acolyte of James Malm had a comment today about UCG's plan on not distributing the Jan-February Good News in the UK and possibly Europe because much of the magazine is focused on Islam.

James – Regarding not distributing the Jan-Feb Good News in England & Australia.
I suggest you find a more reliable “bird”. Much of the magazine deals with the history of Islam. It was felt it could stir government action against the church. It had nothing to do with finances.

Apostle Malm then goes on with these absurd predictions:

The “bird” said the mag was not being distributed. The opinion on finances was mine; now that I read this nonsense, I can see why they would not want it presented to people who know better and could easily refute this ignorance.

It was a very big mistake to publish this error as there are very many who will see through it; an dtheir prophetic conclusions about Islam are profoundly WRONG.

Radical islam is in the prosecc of being destrpoyed and the mainstream Islam will ally itself wioth Catholicism viewing the coming Pope as a man of peace and ultimate moral athiruity, with the all religions are paths to the same god concept.

Non Egyptian Islam will NOT fall out with and go against Europe; it will be ALLIED WITH Europe against the King of the South [The US. Britain and Judah as well as Egypt].

UCG's Good News: Islam vs. the West

Prophet Thiel: The Authority on Everything

Prophet Thiel of the improperly named "Living Church of God" has been quit disturbed lately by the names of various COG's and Christian magazines.

The other day he slammed Christianity Today with this little barb:

Valentine’s Day is observed by many in February. As in prior years, in addition to seeing store displays and tv & print ads, I noticed that the falsely labeled Christianity Today (CT) is again compromising from biblical principles in order to attempt economic gain as it is promoting some jewelry purchases on its “Valentine’s Day” page.

Today his is taking potshots at Gerald Flurry's cult:

Joel Hilliker of the improperly named Philadelphia Church of God (cf. Revelation 3:9) wrote the following (Lessons From the Bloodbath in Syria.  February 8, 2012. From the Trumpet.com):

Prophet Thiel's hypocrisy is beyond measure.  Look at all the baggage associated with the formation of LCG and how they all jumped ship taking Global Church of God's money with them.  Look at the people who connived behind the scenes to form both of these two groups and then stabbed their friends in the back as they left and formed new groups. Prophet Thiel needs to admit that there is NOTHING "Living" about LCG.
Improperly named Living Church of God has a lot to answer for.

COGWA Rakes in the Dollars

Its been a "good" year for the Church of God a Worldwide Association.  In little over a year they have $1.3 million dollars in reserves now.  Of course this is burning a hole in their pockets so that are getting an official office space at "The Office Campus at Allen."  I am sure this is a great dig at UCG when so many predicted the COGWA splinter would fail quickly.

I am happy to announce the location of our new headquarters office in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. We will be leasing an office suite consisting of 5,590 square feet of space on the first floor of the building located at 1301 Central Expressway South, Allen, Texas. Allen is a suburb of Dallas and is located just a few miles north of the city along the Central Expressway (also U.S. Highway 75). The name of the building complex is “The Office Campus at Allen,” and it is in a beautiful setting with easy access to the freeway…

While the location decision was left to the administration, I wanted to make sure everyone agreed with the final selection. Joel Meeker, Leon Walker, Larry Salyer, David Baker, Fort Worth pastor Britton Taylor and I were involved in this review. Jason Lovelady and Clyde Kilough were not present for this final review, but both had seen the properties on a previous trip. Dallas pastor Doug Horchak was out of the country but had also seen the properties at an earlier time. At the end of the day, all present agreed that the Allen property was superior to the others and offered everything we desired at an affordable price (below our budget)…

I have heard that Lil'Joel is quite excited about having some new space:

Van Robison On "The Real Purpose of Churches"

The Real Purpose of Churches

There is no "pastor" who identifies himself or herself with that label, who does not seek personal followers.  Some "pastors" are very successful at gathering a great crowd of people at their feet.  We live in the age of the mega-church and there are many of them.  Herbert W. Armstrong was among those who amassed a considerable number of human sheep.  The front put forth to the world and the public is always the same, which is to "preach the Gospel" to the world.  Without personal followers no "pastor" (unless independently wealthy), could ever build a church building, a "Christian" school, a "Christian" college or fund ministerial homes, luxuries, jet airplanes, trips around the world, glossy magazines and so forth.

Although always hotly denied the real basis for churchianity is money.  Most likely the world of churches will never disappear from life on earth.  Most all parents will forever teach their children to believe as they do in
regard to religious beliefs and so the many belief systems perpetuate endlessly.  The Mormon Church has staggering wealth, as does the Roman Catholic Church.  The Worldwide Church of God during the life time of Herbert W. Armstrong, although nothing to sneeze at in terms of their bank vault, paled into insignificance compared to the Mormon and Catholic churches and even the Jehovah Witnesses.  The Southern Baptist Conference and other groups are also vast religious empires.  In fact the combined wealth of all the churches together is nothing short of countless billions in assets and revenues.  Was God/Jesus Christ ever really just a business enterprise?  Apparently those who founded churchianity think so, as do those who perpetuate this vast money making industry.

Why do men and women aspire to wanting to be "ordained?"  In my opinion it is because of human vanity.  People love to be thought of as being "important", "special", "above others" and "gifted" more than "common" people. I have a friend I have known for many years, who was "ordained" and although he has no following or church, he refers to himself as "Reverend _____."  He has learned that by using the term "reverend", he often receives favors from other people, who deem him as "special."  It is sheer vanity and fraud on his part, and in my opinion borders on blasphemy.  My sister-in-law and my brother-in-law use to attend a very large Baptist Church in a major city and when the older "Senior Pastor", retired, they imported another preacher from clear across the country.  The new "pastor" was so vain and haughty that our in-laws, took an exit.  The man was intolerable.  Young people often run off to "Bible College" thinking they want to "serve" others, and what it really turns out to be is that they become self-serving, at the expense of the tithe payers.

Many churches now have "Youth Pastors", "Children's Pastors", "Music or Worship Pastors" and every type of "pastor" coming and going that are supposed to serve the "needs" of others.  When my two daughters were teenagers, long ago they were bossed around by the youth pastor of the church we attended, and I had a few choice words with this man, that my children were not his property and that he was not their parent.  When the "Christian" school my daughters attended, gave the students so much home work that they had to stay up until midnight or later with "homework", I knew then that we were being robbed of our own family time and so we pulled our daughters out and home schooled them.  Many churches think they are God to those who attend and to their children.

I can't really say that everything about church life is totally bad and that is because human beings are social creatures and they are able to have good times, in spite of the control and financial drain upon their pocket books.  I can remember we use to have volleyball teams at Ambassador College and as employees we had great fun playing that sport.  We attended concerts, had beach outings, campouts and did some fun things.  We had some good friends and many good times at Shakey's Pizza, which included a crowd of our people, guzzling mugs of beer.  We all learned from those experiences.  Some of us simply could not endure the authoritarian hierarchy, the "God-status" of the self-appointed "pastor-kings" or their endless rants and so took an out, never to return.

I still know people that I went to church with many years ago, who still dutifully attend church services every weekend, pay their tithes and seem to be clueless.  Some of us just don't understand how these people think.  Every pastor of every church will defend himself and his church tenaciously.  I have no doubt that many pastors are very sincere and zealous about their beliefs, but sincerity and zeal does not necessarily spell "truth."  People can be sincerely wrong.  For many church goers, those of us who use to attend and now do not, seem to have "spiritual leprosy."  Not all church goers have the same attitude, because some will be friendly and ask no questions, while others treat you as if you have a contagious disease.  I have even found that atheists are generally thinkers, where the clueless sheeplike church attenders are not.  I have read a great deal from atheists and believe there are many legitimate issues.  Some atheists are friendly and likeable and some are hostile and drive people away.  I have no problem having friendship with people who present themselves with a humble attitude, no matter what they believe. I have a friend who grew up in India, although lives in Canada and he is Caucasian and he leans toward Buddhism.  We have some things in common aside from religious beliefs.

Churches will always deny that they exist as business enterprises for the purpose of money, but men have always loved control and power over their fellow human beings, and like all human governments, churches are tools of control and free money.    Churches treat their members as if they are nursing infants and must be bottle fed for life.  Those who sit in pews are insulted as if they are mere spiritual children and must be taught what to think and what to do and what to believe, because without their human "Pastor-God", they cannot function.

Is there an optional way to live and learn without being dominated by men and women who stand in pulpits and think they have a "right" to your pocketbook?


Van Robison