Paypal Accepted

WCG United Kingdom has moved into the electronic age and now makes it possible for you to use your Paypal account to send in tithes and offerings. Whip out that plastic and go to town!

Many churches are using Paypal and credit cards for offerings and donations.  However, many people are really leery in using it.  Some don't trust it as a safe transaction. Paypal also takes a 3% cut from the donation. Many others see it is a greedy and gives the impression of being"money hungry."

I'm certain for some it would be a convenience, but it seems to appear so very money hungry. How difficult it is to remember to write a check...

Scripture again and again demonstrates that being in financial debt is akin to slavery. Churches need to ensure they are not facilitating this. If someone is writing a check or dropping cash into a plate, at the least, it is not borrowed money .

Other churches are using online giving because of the number of Baby-boomers returning to church after staying away for decades.  Many had stopped attending church because they got sick of the constant money begging.

Doug Murren, in his classic book, Baby Boomerang: Catching the Boomer Generation As They Return to Church, identified one of the reasons baby boomers didn't go to church was they felt churches were always asking for money. So a lot of seeker-sensitive churches as a result went out of their way to avoid offending visitors during the offering part of the service.

I am sure this is not the only WCG/GCI church or splinter COG group that does this.  Armstrongism has always been about the money.  The more money they can bring in the better.

True Ramblings

One of the great feelings, which really was only a feeling and probably not based in any genuine reality, was that when in WCG, we could take comfort in the fact that we "all speak the same thing."   We were not divided, all one body we for sure.  We sang it, we (I) preached it.  It was very comfortable and made me, at least from my view, feel safe and protected. 

 

Now I know I had my issues with the Church, or specifically the Armstrongs and various other human beings who seemed this way or that which made me chuckle a bit at how full of themselves they could be. I ignored a lot of things I didn't like, like "to be played in all the Churches" tapes and still survived years!  But that was just  people and people come and go.  I held it close to my chest just how much I hated the visits of one traveling evangelist who just knew the answer to everything and what God was thinking everyday about us.  I never promoted his visits much, tolerated having to hear it two or three times depending on the number of churches I was responsible for and believed virtually none of it.  The voice in my head kept saying...'well what are you going to do when HWA dies?"   I should have put that in a question for him but he never took questions. 

 

I reflect on all the men in the ministry I know and wonder where they went.  Some, of course, went on to promote themselves in their own versions of their astounding Bible reading skills.  But, in fact, most have just faded away and are doing their best doing whatever and neither want contact nor have a public need to process their experience.  To date, not one former full time minister has been in touch with me and none other write on this site openly.

 

Those of us who are here growing through are an interesting bunch.  There are those of us who always comment, those who sometimes comment and most who never comment but I assume think about these things.

 

My own buzzwords that identify me here are, "Apostle Paul," "Birth stories,"  "Resurrection accounts,"  "Adam and Eve,"  "Mythology,"  "Quantum physics,"  "Acceptance,"  "astrotheology,"  "never quotes Jesus,"  "contradict each other,"  "Neanderthal,"  "Paleontology"  "Snarky,"  and so on.  if I did not sign my name , you'd still know it was probably me writing. 

 

And yes, I am "M.T.Hall" but have always assumed that was no secret either.  I sign that at times to honor and remember my dad who used it first when he wrote Joe Tkach Sr. about the effect his leadership was having on my dad's local church.  It was emptying the hall.  Dad is still around at 96, was a WCG elder and now sits back in the very same pew we all grew up in up the street in the Presbyterian Church of his youth.  I deeply love and respect my dad. He is a quiet man who just goes with the flow it seems.  I am not like him but have always wanted to be.  My counselor however reminds me that each of us are on our own journey.  His is his and mine is mine.  That came up when I mentioned they had been married 72 years and I still felt badly about my failed circumstances for which i take full responsibility.

 

At any rate, if I use the words,  "narcissists,"  "snakes in suits,"  "Armstrongists," "British Israelism, "  , we know who this is commenting even without the name.  If we say, "rebel", "used to think,"  " bike,"  "full circle,"  "former atheist," etc, we know who this is.

 

If I hear, "Dennis, you're an idiot,"  "You and your minister buddies,"  "I hope you end up in a refrigerator box," etc...you...well at least I know who that is...ha.  

 

We all are processing a human experience and the topic is religion, faith, trust, hope and life after death,  which is one of the most sensitive of our human needs to explore once we show up on the planet.  

 

We run the gamut from very sincere to now skeptical, very sincere and more sincere, very sincere to cynical,  sorta sincere to very sincere,  not sincere-supposed to be sincere-ok I'm sincere-WTF-atheist-back to sincere and so on.  i think I am stuck a bit at WTF. But no matter, it's all ok.  As that great philosopher once said..."I ams what i ams and that's all that I ams."  Popeye

 

I guess I keep a mental count in my head of how many comment on this blog to various topics.  The postings that highlight some past abuse , situation or now perceived goofy or harmful belief or idea in the past get the most comments.  These are the topics that bring out the hurt and the many personal examples in our experience we can come up.  We comment not unlike men get to telling jokes in a group.  Each joke gets a little better than the last until someone "wins."  You know the ,  "oh yeah, well listen to this one..."  I guess you all know my views on painbodies. 

 

On the other side of the scale are the topics that bring virtually no comments.  In two years not ONE person has comment on my own observations about the contradictory nature of the Birth stories of Jesus (usually around Xmas) or the Resurrection accounts, (usually around Easter/Passover)   Not one person of any persuasion has defended the accounts as without error or historically accurate, which they are not IMHO.  No comments my view that the Apostle Paul hijacked the Jesus movement and the original Apostles did not like the man nor taught what he taught.  No comments on why Paul never quotes Jesus etc or the reality that Paul was the first to write the Jesus/Gentile story before the Gospels ever saw the light of day. I'd love to hear just one rebuttal as to why it is a good thing that Paul presents himself as "all things to all men...to the Jew a Jew, to the Gentile a Gentile.." etc and not wonder what the hell the real Paul really believed.  Or was lying and playing head games just the way to go?  

 

I have been scorned for noting that the Apostle Paul, as did Matthew and others, often misquoted the OT to promote their own agendas.  The Hebrew of the Hebrew quotes the Greek version of the OT to make points that would make a real Pharisee gag.  He even makes the same mistakes in doing so that the version contains as if he doesn't know the OT does not really say that.  I use the phrase, "you can't make a scripture mean what it never meant," but actually you can and it is called Midrash.  However, it is dishonest to reality and while a then acceptable way of writing about something you have little hard evidence for and would get you flunked out of seminary today, was ok then.    Matthew's birth account, as well as Lukes, which do not agree were made up by cobbling OT scriptures together and are not based in any reality of Jesus birth they knew about.  But I spare you.  My point is that these kinds of observations bring little if no comment.  

 

One very sincere literalist here on the blog challenged me to show him where Paul made the OT mean what it never meant or misquoted the OT to make his points.  I sent the man several classics from which i got no response or a better explanation for Paul's practice.   I don't blame him for not responding but I have to assume the examples were a bit enlightening in ways that cause conflict in the mind. 

 

The origins of everything seem to fascinate me.  From the origins of the earth, the universe, humans, consciousness and religion, it is all fascinating.  I just ever, as I suspect we all would say, no matter our current views, wanted to know the truth.  Handling the truth, as we know, can be divisive, scary and a lifelong experience with others in head banging over who is right.   

 

Recently I was listening to a very dynamic, yet goofy radio type trying his best to show the story of Jonah and the Great Fish literally happened and a man can survive in the belly of a whale etc.  He uses the example, now understood to be one of America's oldest urban legends, of a man swallowed by a whale on an 18th century whaling encounter.  He was cut out of the fish two days later, a bit digested but alive blah blah.   I wrote him with backup that any 15 year old in his audience with a Internet connection could debunk it before he finished the story.  His response was less than kind.  He "noticed" my source had an ad for Barack Obama and so that source was suspect.  He "noticed" the source was from the "secular web," which means he has access to the "religious web" which promotes the story as true so it must be true.  In short, he did not want me raining on his parade.  Yesterday, I was listening again and darn it if he did not use the story again!   I sent him better documentation this time but it just pissed him off. 

 

Well, just Sunday morning ramblings here.  Biz is a bit slow. The school I teach at reminds me at times of WCG drama at the Administrative level and getting stuck between crazy "policies" and the students who suffer from them.  Someone told me to "not listen to the students" and all I heard in my head was "don't listen to the members."  Ugh.  I opted for defending the students as usual.  I don't take a lot of BS this time around and speak up quickly no matter the cost.  I know i suffer from the classic underachiever thing at this point in life. 

 

But Fall comes soon and it has always been my favorite time of year.  May you all have the best Feast ever....no wait....sorry...that just slipped out.  :)

 

Dennis C. Diehl

DenniscDiehl@aol.com

 

Grace In The Dark Places: Conquering the Cultic Mindset (Part 1)

Grace in the Dark Places: Conquering the Cultic Mindset

by  Jim Turner

Xulon Press

2010

337 pages

Following are some excepts from Jim Turners book on his life as a youth growing up in Armstrongism.  His part as a minister in the church and his escape from the cultic mindset of Armstrongism.  He has done extensive research into the psychology of why people join cults and remain in them.  Almost all of his experiences were like mine growing up in Armstrongism in the Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Dayton Ohio area in the 60's and 70's.  It still amazes me that people in various of the splinter groups deny to this day that any of this ever happened.

From the back cover:

Why are people drawn to alternative religions that deviate from the norm of Christian belief?  Why do they stay? What compels them to cling to false dogma, even in the face of evidence that their beliefs are in error?  Why do they engage in scriptural gymnastics in defense of beliefs that have no grounding in Christian theology?  Why do they tolerate abusiveness from charismatic leaders and cede personal freedom?  Why are they willing to defend these leaders and their institutions to the bitter end?

After a lifetime of spiritual incarceration, Jim Turner began studying the cult mentality in order to better understand his actions.  He researched religious cults and their practices and traced their teachings throughout history as they found their way into the 'New Religions." His studies have convinced him that there is indeed "nothing new under the sun."  New Religions offer amended ideas that identified past cults. Modern cults have extracted beliefs from past groups and added a spin that presents them as original and, of course, inspired.

Psychological manipulation plays a significant role in the development and continuation of modern cults, but Jim Turner has presented a convincing argument that the psychological condition and willingness of cultists to surrender their freedom to cult leaders and their irrational tendencies to elevate a revered leader to a semi-divine level are equally responsible for the advancement of cults.

Follow the author through the early stages of cult indoctrination, the personal abuses he experienced at the hands of the cult, his personal choices as he rose through the ranks of the cult and his eventual enlightenment to eh deceptiveness of the cult led by Herbert Armstrong.  Walk with him out of the darkness of cultic deception into the glorious light of the Grace of God through Jesus Christ.

Preface

(pg. xviii) From the time of that ignoble birth, my mind developed along a singular path of religion mixed with superstition and fear, for my mother, notwithstanding her poverty and lack of education, was determined to leave her children a legacy of religions instructions.  The earliest memories I have involve the elements of the pietism that drove her to focus all her maternal energies toward that end. She swaddled her children in a tight cocoon of biblical mishmash, intended to protect them from the corruption of the world around having the collateral effect of restricting them from social and intellectual development.  Sabbath keeping, observance of the Jewish holy days, adherence to biblical dietary laws – including no pork, catfish, rabbits, squirrels, or lard, along with other taboos from Herbert Armstrong’s theology – ruled our home.

We ate no white bread and no white sugar (brown sugar processed with awful-tasting molasses was substituted), took regular doses of cod liver oil, ate prunes to keep us regular, and took no medicines, not even aspirin for headaches.  Mom taught us that the girls in the neighborhood who wore shorts were sinful, that women were to wear dresses and occasionally long pants if working in the fields.  In her religious fervor, she itemized sinful behavior to include virtually every action of everyone around us.

As I began to investigate the chain of circumstances that led to the twists and turns in my life, I came to realize that others would benefit from my experience through recognition of similar traits and influences that brought them to a similar place in life.  I was deceived.  (pg. xix) I was conscripted into a clever collusion, to which I eventually consigned my body and soul.  The torturous and serpentine journey into spiritual confusion that describes my life is complex and indistinct, even perplexing at times.

There came a time when my subjugation expired and I willingly reenlisted, accepting the consequences of my actions. I elected to ascend through the ranks, disregarding the abuse and compromise that attended such advancement.  There were vague crossroads, times when circumstances dictated my decisions as well as times when, clearly, I acted according to the fortuitous winds of personal advantage.  There were moments of uncertainty when I opted to follow the crowd rather than taking the moral high road that my conscience futilely prescribed.  Guilt played a huge role in my actions, a contentious double-edged guilt that often implied that I must follow the dictates of the man whom I had come to believe was the true servant of God while at the same time suggesting that I must buck the crowd and openly acknowledge the abuses.

No one will find, in my exact footsteps, the exact path of his own life.  I believe we will find that notwithstanding the deviations in our course, we crossed the Rubicon together and arrived at the same destination. We became members of a cult.  We sacrificed our vision through acceptance of that of a charismatic figure to whom we pledged undying loyalty.  Inherent to that sacrifice came a willingness to separate ourselves from others, including family and friends, who failed to see the privileged status to which we had subscribed. We became spiritual elitists.  Parasitically, we attached ourselves to the one and only true servant of God in hopes of obtaining exclusive positions in the divine appointment.

(pg. xx)  From early on, I subscribed to the belief that Herbert Armstrong was the man of God that he purported to be.  I was willing to blindly follow him, sometimes not knowing which way I was moving, going up or going down, upright or upside down – it mattered not as long as I was keeping my eyes on the leader. His vision was my vision.  As I matured, there were times when I entertained doubts, still willing to follow his lead, but subconsciously strapping on a parachute so that if a crash seemed imminent, I could bail out.

Ultimately, slowly at first, more rapidly toward the end of my career as a minister in Armstrong’s church, I came to the realization that I must assume control of my life, utilize the instruments available to me as a child of God and abandon the passive acceptance of his leadership.  As I swerved away from his superintendence, I experienced fear and hesitancy, doubtful of my ability to navigate the ship of my life.  For a while, I was free-falling, spinning out of control, lacking the confidence to grab hold of the yoke that controlled the flight of my life.  Myriad emotions racked my mind.  I felt angry, abandoned, deceived, betrayed, and, most frighteningly, cut off from God.

Into this chaotic and befuddled state, the light of Jesus Christ began to penetrate the darkness, and fragmentary and ever so slowly, I began to walk in the freedom that had eluded me for most of my life.

Thankfully I escaped the clutches of the cultic establishment of Herbert Armstrong before I became so languorously entangles (pg. xxi) within them that I lost the courage to walk away.  This was not the case with many of his followers. Numerous splinter groups of the Worldwide Church of God emerged, beginning even before his death and prodigiously after he passed away.  These groups consist of people who ardently and desperately seep to perpetuate Armstrong’s beliefs.  I am certain that many of these schismatic groups cling to their beliefs, fearful that to abandon them is tantamount to apostasy.  I am equally certain that some of them egotistically nurture the idea that they are the divinely appointed heirs of the truth that grants them the same power and authority that Armstrong enjoyed.

I am under no illusions that my story will bring about change in the beliefs of those who are content to maintain the delusion of their own superiority in the spiritual realm.  Nor will it change the minds of those who happily trudge down the road to deception, doggedly guarding the beliefs to which they have adhered for most of their lives.  A system to which they have ceded so much control over life cannot be a lie.  To acknowledge such requires personal honesty and scrupulous confession that many are unable to muster.

While I know that these people cannot be contrarily convinced, I am nevertheless hopeful that I can embolden some of those who struggle with their position and to begin to make the course corrections that will allow them to experience the true freedom in Jesus Christ.  I have discovered that road and somehow found the courage to renounce former beliefs that held me captive.  I was as entrenched into the etchings of Herbert Armstrong as one could possibly be. It was all I knew. Spurning those beliefs required deep soul searching and complete surrender to God and a generous amount of guidance from the Holy Spirit.

(pg. xxii) My story is an invitation to walk in the shoes of a common ordinary person who has been there and done that when it comes to the cult experience. I will attempt to describe the conditions in my early life that set the stage for my induction into a cult and to tale you with me on a bizarre journey into the depths of oppression, and finally through my escape from such darkness into the light of freedom.  I sincerely hope that through sharing some of my studies on the psychology of cultism and reflections upon grace that enabled me to surrender to it, I can impart some practical information that will serve others on their journey.

I find that many of my friends and peers who traveled this journey with me are afraid to honestly admit to the wrongdoings of this misguided institution.  It seems that inherent in all of us is a need to justify decisions we have made, especially those that have influenced the direction of our lives for years. Perhaps through my coming forth with candidness’, others might be encouraged to also acknowledge (pg. xxiii) the truth.  It is not my intent to vent anger toward those who were instrumental in fashioning my experience, but rather to openly acknowledge the fact that I was deceived.  To that end and with a prayer toward that outcome, I offer my story.

Idiots In The Pulpit: Jonathan Bell

Ask an Evolutionary Creationist…An Athiest...A Catholic...A Mennonite..A Humanitarian

Rachel Held Evans has been running a series of posts on her blog called "Ask A _______."   She has selected various people from different backgrounds to answer questions written in by readers.  Her first was "Ask a Mormon"  Most are answered by people who are looked upon by fundamentalists as "deceived". 

In seeing the various people she is highlighting and the responses from some of the fundamentalists reminds me of many in Armstrongism who regard these same people with derision and contempt. God forbid if anyone in Armstrongism every thought about asking anything of the following people and groups!  Truth only resides in Armstrongism and cannot be found outside it.

Rachel's latest one is:

Ask an Evolutionary Creationist…

others are:

Ask an Atheist
Ask a Catholic
Ask an Orthodox Jew
Ask a Humanitarian
Ask a Mormon
Ask a Mennonite 

When Was the Last Time Your Old Church Found Some New Truth?

Saturday, May 21, 2011 

I grew up in the Presbyterian Church and I don't believe I ever heard anyone use the words "the truth" when speaking of their beliefs. It was just beliefs. You know, the ones passed on from generation to generation and being Presbyterian, no one in the local church ever would think to question any of it. It didn't matter. Behind the scenes, one could believe what they wanted and it was all so generic and nice that I can honestly say I never remember one issue coming up that maybe needed to be looked at, or anyone uttering the words, "new truth." Old truth was just fine and who cared.

When I discovered, as a teen, the really true Church of God, that seemed to me to be concerned with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that's all we heard about. People were asking each new member "So how or when did you come into the truth?" It was a nice way to say ask how long they had been in the church and from what error had they arrived. The word "truth" was thrown around a lot by that church. Everything had to do with "the truth." We kept the true sabbath, the true holydays, understood the truth about being born again and the truth about unclean meats and how to have a happy marriage. There were the true seven ways to be happy or be a leader or study your bible. You could be called into the truth and you could be dismembered for falling away from the truth. There was the truth about tithing and the truth about not tithing. There was the truth about who God has chosen and who He had not chosen and who He now loved and who he was pissed off with. There was the truth about the end times, which of course, we were living in and Jesus second coming simply has to be in the very near future. In my lifetime in fact! We even knew the Plain Truth about everything from trade wars to crime and queer men. Never heard much about the truth of queer women though.

If you wanted to know the truth, just ask the Church, preferably on the local level by way of the minister, who knew all the truth there was. We knew the truth about evolution and the truth about the flood. Often we knew the "plain truth" which is the truth stripped down to the really core truth of the truth and was so simple to understand. However, simple as the truth might be to understand, God still had to open your mind to the truth, or you were never going to understand or know the truth. But it was simple after that. I later found out that "God has to open your mind," meant that one who came to the same conclusions as the Church and leadership had indeed had their mind opened by God. Those who disagreed or only saw some of it were still in the grip of Satan or at best had a bad attitude.

Gosh, we knew the truth about life and death. No one knew how consciousness or quantum physics worked, but all things God, just ask! We knew where you went and where you didn't went. We knew when you went to where you were going and how to get there and who wasn't going along with you because they had yet to discover the truth. We knew when they would discover the truth and, while not as good as when I discovered the truth, it was not bad at all. What's a thousand year difference compared to eternity? Nuttin! We knew who was in the right Church, which would be us, and who would be in the wrong Church, which would be all not us.

We knew the truth about the God of the Old Testament and why he was so freaking mean and loved killing both animals and humans. We knew the truth about the New Testament and how the Son of the Old Testament God was the nicer of the two and canceled all the stuff His Dad liked. We knew that the truth was that this bachelor son lived alone with His Father, after everyone that loved him the week before killed him. We knew they lived somewhere and the Father never had a wife or female to keep him company. But that was just the truth. God was a He and if you were a she, then you still had to be a "son of God" just the same, because that was the truth. Of course, I was uncomfy with me, a male, being the Bride of Christ, ewwww, but that was the truth too, so I had to rejoice in it.

Wow, we knew it all. Just ask! But once in a great while we discovered "New Truth." I can't tell you how amazing new truth is to discover. Now I may have been hoping that we would have discovered the new truth about the actual origins of man and the evolution of life over millions of years as opposed to the truth of everything being around 6000 years old, the story of Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel, but that was not up for discussion. I thought maybe there was some new truth on why so many of the stories in the Old and New Testament are either scientifically incredible or historically impossible and unprovable, but no luck there either. I thought maybe some new truth might have to do with how the Gospels aren't harmonious eyewitness accounts of Jesus life, nor written by the men whose names appear on the books. But no banana there either. I thought maybe we'd get some new truth about why Paul never mentions Jesus' life, teachings, miracles, life events, birth or stuff like that, including why he never quotes him, but no, wrong again.

What really would have been nice would have been some new truth on how the local minister was just a guy too and didn't know everything and that was ok, but nope, nothing like that either. And it really would have been nice if, as a minister, I could suspect there was such a thing as "new truth" out there that maybe those in charge had missed to, but whoa baby, don't even think about it! New truth had to come from the top down and only agreement came from the bottom up. That's the way all churches area really. Top down, not bottom up. Bottom uppers are an endangered species in any church.

Recently a friend of mine told me the guy at the top of her church made a really good point in her church. Seems the minister fired the music director of 25 years without permission from the people. He said he was the guy at the top and it was his call. One guy at the bottom asked to speak and was given permission to do so. He reminded the minister that that is now how things are done and that he was wrong to do this firing on his own. Then the really good part comes up. The son of the minister walks up the isle and decks the guy opposing his father's actions. Police are called and it's all good! The bottom uppers won because decking the good guy never pays. I love the truth!

Once in a great while New Truth did come to the Church of "all Truth all the Time." But alas, it was always something like, "The New Truth About Make-up" or "The New Truth About Divorce and Remarriage." I learned these truths came from God when leadership was being being given a hard time about make-up by God's leading wives or some of God's leading wives left their leading husbands and the leading husband wanted a new leading wife. We did have the New Truth about Healing as well as leaders aged, needed care that they didn't need when younger and rethought the idea of only trusting God for healing etc. I'm glad that was old truth to me but I managed to keep that to myself and members in my care who asked.
But over all, New Truth just doesn't make it's way into Churches very often. They don't love to tell the old old story for nothing! As Mark Smith says in "Damn the Truth."

"Christians, unlike scientists, hate any and all evidence that goes against their theories. Theologians have a very hostile and oft times irrational attitude towards any evidence that would even suggest their theories need to be changed to fit the facts. To a Christian, a faulty theory is like an old member of the family whose mind has seen better days- something to warmly embrace and shield from all criticism. Christians, rather than being disinterested seekers of truth as they oft times pretend to be, are thus shown instead to be preachers of established dogma, opinions firmly set in concrete, with their minds already made up for them two thousand years ago by a Jewish rabbi. To a fundy Christian, there is no "new truth" to seek out or be discovered. So rather than seeking out new truth, they instead only seek out new ways to defend their old "truths". This is the reason you'll never see a "Research and Development" department within a school of theology. It is also the reason why, in defense of Christianity, no argument is too circular, no appeal to emotion avoided, and no straw men are left unconstructed."

He goes on to ask if a genuine new Gospel of Jesus were ever found, would it be added to the current New Testament? The answer is, of course, "NO" because all the truth there is, is already in the Bible. Besides, they have already found really great new Gospel writings, but one says the Disciples got miffed at Jesus for kissing Mary too often on the lips. When they asked Jesus why he loved her more than them, he came back with, "why does she love me more than you?" Great answer!!! Lousy Gospel. You'll never hear it in church.
One of the other problems out there when it comes to "The Truth" is that it gets suppressed a lot when someone who knows finds it. After all, it did take the Catholic Church 450 years to apologize to Galileo for noting that the sun was the center of the solar system and the earth revolved around it, not it around the earth. I personally think that 450 years between learning the truth and applying the truth is too long and certainly too long between apologies. Now the Catholic Church is not so sure about unsaved babies going to Limbo and may, in fact, get to go to heaven like baptized babies. Cool huh? Like they know, but isn't that amazing how something that was so much "the truth" for millions in the past, is now probably not after all...oh well.? This is great news for babies, if retroactive which I suppose it is or at least we can hope. Now those who thought one thing can think something else more comforting. Gosh, I hope this new truth does not only apply after a certain date. Bummer! All kidding aside, that kind of truth is just opinion because of questions raised about the state of certain categories of humans that die in certain states of being according to the Church. Don't mistake any of that for truth. We must not forget that Church Father's of the past were not above adjusting the truth to fit a real need. As Gibbon noted,

"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has SUPPRESSED all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion...(he has thus) so openly VIOLATED one of the fundamental laws of history." (On Christianity, Edward Gibbon, Prometheus, Buffalo, New York, 1991 pp. 131, 132)

Even Paul made a big deal about being duplistic. He would be a Jew to a Jew, a Gentile to a Gentile etc. which always left me wondering just what and who Paul really was. He said so often in the New Testament that he wasn't lying, I wonder why he felt he had to say that so often? Sounds like lots of folk thought he was.
So ask yourself, when was the last time my church found out there were more truths to understand than the ones they have in all their booklets and tracts? And I don't mean the Plain Truth About Eating Out After Church! I bet you'll have to say never. Church's don't really deal in truth as much as tradition and control of how those traditions are defended and apologized for. Church apologetics really are that you know. They are apologies for the fact that there are those times when we can see that something about the Bible or a "truth" as explained by a Church just does not fit the facts as we know them in this day and age, and yet we will not examine them. Sorry, the old truth is THE truth and we simply are not admitting any new ones at this time. Churches don't do new truth, but are good at doing new ways to defend old truths, which might not really be true.

This attitude of all churches and religions really should be your first hint that something is very wrong with it all and perhaps it really is all about tradition, not making waves, money, control and keeping the old old, yet inaccurate story alive so we all feel better. Most are afraid they or others will be disillusioned if "New Truth" rears it's ugly head, but when it comes right down to it, do you wish to live your life based on illusions? Actually many do which is why they never question anything...

Dennis C. Diehl

DenniscDiehl@aol.com

COGWA Elects New Leadership: Same Old, Same Old....

Those fine upstanding folk at COGWA, who conspired behind UCG's back while on UCG's dole have elected new leadership.  Men only, of course. The same men who conspired to form UCG when they split from WCG, then did the same planning behind UCG's back to form their new splinter cult.  Same old unethical actions with a new church name.  Same old, same old.

Don't expect anything new from this group.  As they fall back into retro mode and worship all things HWA prior to 1986 look for more people to defect from their group.  Some have already left because they realized they had bought into a lie and have returned to UCG, or left the COG completely.

They having nothing worthwhile for the world and will only gain a few converts who already have some kind of COG background.


The awesome new leadership is:

Jim Franks

Douglas  Horchak

Clyde L. Kilough

Joel  Meeker

Richard  Pinelli

Richard Thompson

Leon Walker