Dennis On: Choose Your Beliefs or Someone Else Will Choose Them For You

Choose your Beliefs or Someone Else Will Choose Them For You

"Be sure to choose what you believe and know why you believe it, because if you don't choose your beliefs, you may be certain that some belief, and probably not a very creditable one, will choose you." Robertson Davies,'The Deptford Trilogy ' (p477).

Early in life, people believe what they have been told and taught to believe by those who have been also so taught before them. For better or worse, most humans on the planet still believe what others have taught them from the beginning as if, by chance, they just happened to luck out and end up being born into a family that absolutely had the final truth on most topics already understood. Of course we know this is not really likely.

But humans are mostly content not to look out and wonder if what they have been told is really true. Most humans, it seems, are not so much interested in truths as they are with comfortable beliefs. Comfortable beliefs don't really have to be true, but they are satisfying as long as one does not think too deeply about them or question the facts or their presentation.

Truth on the other hand can be very uncomfortable and yet while true, pushes the person away from that set of beliefs they were given at birth and expected to abide by. This causes no end of drama, as those who are content with beliefs, do all they can to punish and coerce those who opt for truth over belief.

They may over talk to them about how wrong they are, or not speak to them again to punish them for straying outside the tribal beliefs. In some pathetic cultures, they simply kill you and solve the problem of you're influencing others to rethink their own beliefs, given by the tribe. It is not nice to fool Mother Nature, but it is even worse to buck the tribal beliefs and wonder if maybe you have not been told everything.

Today we see that discomfort over beliefs vs. truths in the rancorous debates over evolution vs. creationism. While the facts of evolution are generally true, details to follow, creationism is falling quickly out of favor as the explanation of how life and mostly humans came to be on this planet. The people who defend creationism do so to defend their belief on how God did or didn't do something. Their belief is based on an ancient text. It is also based on the absolute need to defend the inerrancy of the text and reality of God as we have been taught "him" to be in Sunday School.

Science defends evolution based on evidence that there might be more to life than what is contained in ancient texts. They don't claim to understand it, but are willing to step outside a box that creationists aren't, because there is so much evidence that contradicts the Biblical account.
Now creationists are endeavoring to defend the text as being good science, but it simply can't be done anymore. Showing animals in Old Testament stories spotted and stripped poles before birthing so that they produce spotted or stripped offspring is something even they will have to admit is not how it works. That's really bad science on the part of the Bible, but made perfect sense to them three thousand years ago. Modern genetics really is the answer to really bad biblical "science."

Other beliefs, based on biblical texts are falling out of favor due to overwhelming evidence that contradicts them. Most honest pastors and theologians know that the birth stories of Jesus are not literally true. Most know, the story of Jesus is not all that unique in human history and the archetype of a dying God/man, persecuted, crucified, dead three days and risen again is not a once told story of Jesus.

Most recognize that the Old Testament did not spring out of vacuum, but rather out of the pagan cultures and Egyptian influences that preceded it. Most who take the time, realize the concept of God evolves even in the Old Testament right on through the New. The simple Christian, "loving father God" of today is not how it all began. Today we have a difficult time thinking an all knowing, all caring, all forgiving, all everything God would define himself as a "jealous God" who punishes generations of people for the sins of their great great grandfathers. Although literalist christians are very comfortable with that because, "God says, I believe it, that settles it for me." Whatever is not comfortable to even a literalist is dismissed as your not really understanding the text, or that God, while jealous, is all the other good stuff too. I think if I hear, "for the wisdom of man is foolishness with God", "My ways are not your ways", or "God does not see as a man sees", one more time as a way to bale the literalist out of a pinch, I shall scream :)

With just a bit of time today researching a favorite topic on the internet, one can find that there is much much more to the story, the facts and the implications of a topic than what they simply had passed on to them from mom and dad who got it from their mom and dad, who got it from ....

Many today are coming to realize that the entire drama played out in the New Testament as the literalized story of Jesus was first played out in the heavens and still is today as the earth rotates around it's axis and around the sun. The rising and setting of the Sun of God in the heavens, which is literally the "light of the world" and literally as the sun, delivers us from darkness, and "in which is no variableness nor shadow of turning" is a type that literalists christians will someday have to come to terms with. It is no coincidence that when Jesus is said to have been born of a virgin on December 25th, at the end of the three darkest days of the year, Virgo, the Virgin precedes the sun rise and thus literally "the Virgin brings forth the Sun."

It is no coincidence that the Lamb is crossified in April when the Sun is in Aries,the Lamb, at the junction of the celestial equator and the sun's path across the heavens at the spring equinox (equal night). Humans have seen this story acted out for thousands of years. The entire circle of the zodiac, and the path the Sun/Son takes through it, tells the identical story of the life and death of Jesus and every other God/man in all cultures. The names have been changed to protect the innocent when it comes right down to it.

It has only been since the corporate and literalist church and church fathers demanded the allegory be believed as literal history upon pain of death that all the conflict and heartache of religion began. Taking an allegory and making it literally true is why the Bible seems to have so many problems and is not the harmonious piece of work that the Church would have one to believe. Many of them know it is not, but won't tell you because it does not keep the system alive if people think for themselves.

It is not to a literalist church's advantage for you to realize that a real God does not require you to go through anyone and certainly does not need you to show up at a specific building at a specific time where you learn specific and contradictory truths from the one true minister, and lose about ten percent of your annual income to boot. That's religion.

True spirituality is an inside job. What we see today in literalized Christianity is crowd control and a demand that people stay put in the box and reject any contrary facts in the name of Faith. Faith is what is demanded when the facts start to scare the powers that be. In truth, Paganism = truth when one understands Christian origins. The Christians met the pagans, and inspite of appearances, the pagans won.

So, back to original point.

Most of us had our truths preselected for us and we simply were expected to carry on the traditions. But we live in a world where information is much more available to show that most likely we have not all been told the truth of many things. Frankly, most won't even bother to look outside their given truths. I know that. Some will look and in horror at being wrong, will retreat back to where it is safe and comfy. Some will be intimidated for a time to not look, though they want to.

Some ministers today are forced to warn their parishioners NOT to go on the internet and research the real background of their church, religion or sacred story. Whatever you do, don't use the search words "jesus mythology", or "pagan Christian origins", or "Astrotheology", "Errancy", "contradictions Bible" or a host of other words combined in such a way as to open your mind and infuriate everyone else who does not want you to learn one bit more than the guy, and it's mostly guys, who is the provider of his truth to you.

But go for it anyway, and remember...

"Be sure to choose what you believe and know why you believe it, because if you don't choose your beliefs, you may be certain that some belief, and probably not a very creditable one, will choose you."

Dennis C. Diehl

DenniscDiehl@aol.com

Men's Hair Lengths and Women's Veils: "Duplicitous" COG Teaching

Is it? Or, isn't it?

The circle dancing continues with the Apostle regarding hair.  The Apostles claims almost all who have read his postings concerning women's hair coverings agree with him (over 2,000).  A few have disagreed and that has gotten under his skin and he has become very defensive.

Today he has this blurb about men who have long hair.  It's not as bad as you think, Godly men can wear long hair.  Herb and Spanky must love that! " It it was good enough for Sampson, it's good enough for us."

.   This was the custom of that time:  If we reject that custom for today; we must also reject the concept that men must have short hair and ladies long hair because these were also the customs of that time in that area.

When Paul says that nature teaches that it is a shame for men to have long hair, he is appealing to the natural or cultural norms of the day and area.  In terms of the natural order, it would be unnatural to cut that which nature grows.  And the prohibition against hair cutting in certain vows of service to God clearly demonstrates that God is not against long hair in men.  It was indeed the custom for men to cut their hair and the prohibition against the cutting was among other things a sign of being set apart to God.

The biblical injunction was against effeminacy which could most definitely include hair length and style;  that doe not give the COGs the right to legislate specific hair length as being over the collar etc.

One cannot reject one part of the issue and then accept and demand another part be required.  Either it is correct for men to have short hair and women to wear veils or it is not; they go hand in hand as cultural norms of that time and place.  The church has been very self righteous about setting Corinthian cultural norms for men’s hair lengths and yet has not abided by Corinthian cultural norms in female head coverings.  This is duplicitous.

You rebellious Jezebel's aren't off the hook either.  The Apostle claims you are upset about hair coverings because you are not humble!

Covering the head by women is not a specific command of God, neither is it condemned.  Yet it is thought to be humbling by some, or they would not protest so much.   It is burdensome; it is too much trouble, etc!  Personally I put on a hat every time I go out into the rain [which is a lot on the west [wet] coast, and I do not find it burdensome at all!

The Apostle, like all Armstrongite legalistic apologists cannot seem to make up his mind. Hair coverings are not required, yet he encourages you to do it.  It's the same dance that all the harlot splinter cult leaders trot out when they claim to be new covenent' followers, but that the law is to be kept also.  You can't have it both ways.  Apostle Malm can't have it both ways and will soon resort to making it a requirement for all women in his cult just as all the splinter cults require the law today.

So this is how the Apostle dances around it all:

Of course I write in generalities, there are some very whole hearted and true brethren out there!  God bless you all!

Translation:  The TRUE called out believers will get what I am saying, the degenerates will not and will be rebellious.....

Take a Hit of Jehovahjuana

It's no wonder Christians are looked upon with so much derision by so many when there are these kinds of people out there.

 John Crowder claims he met Jesus while on an acid trip and now travels the world getting people quite literally high on God. He and his disciples 'drink', 'inject' and 'smoke' Jesus and spend much of their time seemingly wasted and posting bizarre sermon videos on YouTube.

Those Immodest Church of God Women

 

Looking at the above picture you see a group of happy people who have reached a milestone in their lives.

However, according to the grumpy far right nutjobs in the Church of God this is a group of immodest, inconsiderate, ignorant wanna-be fake Christians (i.e the women only).

These are the recent graduates of the UCG Ambassador Bible Center.  Regardless of what I think about the 'biblical' education they have received, they have accomplished something important in their lives. 

Maybe with the new direction UCG is headed these might be the movers and shakers that actually make a difference in the Church. However, that is another post.

Now get a look at what one woman in the COG thinks about these women above.  She was responding to Malm's asinine hat post yesterday:

Custom or no, it is quite clear to anyone who attends any of the COG’s that there is rampant immodesty in dress exemplified at services, so one can imagine what is worn at other times. I am amazed at the number of strapless dresses, mini-hemlines, plunging necklines, and sprayed-on applicator dresses that are worn for purposes of worship. A quick glance around at services and at the 2011 Ambassador graduating class picture (posted proudly online for all to see) speaks volumes. When was the last time we all heard a genuine sermon at ANY of the COG’s about appropriate dress and its impact on cultivating modesty (or not)? At every single church event that involves swimming or beach/pool access (like at the Feast, etc), a reminder announcement to wear modest swimsuits apparel has to be written. How sad is it that God’s own people have to be constantly reminded to dress with a modicum of humility? Shouldn’t this be a moot point by now? Is it that we really still don’t know how to dress ourselves properly after all these years or is it that we just don’t give a flip? Do we fear offending some by taking a stance on the issue publicly, from the podium? If so, then this begs yet another question–what is the attitude behind the silence?

I can only imagine what this woman dresses like.  Probably still in a long skirt to her ankles like COG women had to wear in the 50's/60's, no make up, her hair up in a tight bun like this:

or 1960's Ambassador hair like this: