CHAPTER ONE
IN THE BEGINNING
I grew up in the Worldwide Church of God, an organization labeled “cult” by most of mainstream Christianity. At the head of it, was Herbert W. Armstrong, a forceful personality, with a unique interpretation of scripture. I grew up believing that we in the Worldwide Church of God were the only true Christians in the world. My mother told me a story of how when I was a toddler in the stroller and
we were passing by a large old church, I pointed and said “Man's way.”
The Worldwide Church of God took a lot of their beliefs from the Old Testament. Being young, I never really understood why some of the ancient laws were kept and some were discarded. I'm sure there was a reason and I'm sure it made sense to the adults. At least, I hope it did. I've never felt bad for being part of a group that taught Biblically unsound doctrines. I was a child and a child will believe in Santa Claus if you tell them with enough conviction. But I do wonder about the adults and why they were so quick to let someone interpret the Bible for them. My husband, who is eight years older than me, said that it wasn't so much the doctrine that attracted him as much as the emphasis on righteous living. And there was an emphasis on righteous living. But unfortunately most people were not living up to the high standards we taught.
I think another draw for a lot of people was the emphasis on prophecy. I grew up believing that someday, before a great tribulation fell upon the world, we believers would be taken to a place of safety where we would be hidden from the wrath that fell on everyone else. Herbert W. Armstrong had a radio show and a television show called The World Tomorrow where he preached out of Daniel and
Revelation and gave his own unique interpretations. I think there were quite a few people who joined the church to escape the great tribulation.
It was believed that the place of safety was Petra, in Jordan. Mr. Armstrong would travel around the world as an “ambassador for peace” and one of the people he met was King Hussein of Jordan. The church had some sort of outreach to handicapped children in Jordan. Since Petra was in Jordan and Mr.
Armstrong was a “friend” of King Hussein, it was taught that we would all fly to Jordan and stay in Petra for the duration of the tribulation. I have some vague recollection that at some point, soldiers of the world would surround Petra and threaten us all, but that heavenly retribution would strike them down. What was more critical to people was what they would bring to survive the years in Petra. One woman said she was going to bring two suitcases of maxi pads.
As a child, I once packed a small briefcase full of my favourite books and then carried it around with me, even if we went across the city on the subway, because it was said that we could be called to flee at any moment. One of my childhood fears was that I would come home from school and find my mother and younger brothers gone and that I would somehow have to make my way to the airport (by taxi, I suppose) or else I would miss the flight to safety. Contacting my dad at work was not an option. He wasn't a member of the Worldwide Church of God and therefore would have to face the tribulation. When it was preached from the pulpit that during that horrible time the guillotine would probably be restored as a form of punishment I resigned myself to my dad's inevitable fate. You see, my dad knew too much. He had lived with a believing wife and would therefore have to stand up for the truth in the future time of persecution and would be punished for his belated realization that everything the church taught was true.
The Great Tribulation would be followed by the Wonderful World Tomorrow. It would be a time of peace and prosperity on the earth with the members of the Worldwide Church of God in positions of leadership. There would be a resurrection of the righteous and great Biblical men like Daniel and Noah would have important jobs. King David would be the king, but under Moses. The twelve apostles would be under David. Below them would be rulers of smaller bodies of land.
Daniel would be in charge of the Gentile nations because he had had all that experience in King Nebuchadnezzar's court. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, would be immediately under Daniel. Noah would be in charge of relocating the races to their designated lands. Joseph would administer the world's food supply. Job would head up a worldwide rebuilding program, something much needed after the devastation of the Great Tribulation. His assistant would be Zerubbabel, a man who had helped to rebuild Jerusalem after the Jewish captivity in Babylon.
The world would be educated in the way's of God. Christ would rule the world from Jerusalem. All animals would be tame and as a child, I heard the question, “Wouldn't you like to have a lion as a pet?” In anticipation of all of this, the Worldwide Church of God had a lion and a lamb with a little child in front as its ubiquitous logo.
When it came to practicing the laws of the Old Testament, we didn't eat pork or any kind of shellfish so pepperoni pizza never passed my lips, nor did lobster or shrimp. We kept all of God's commanded Feast Days. People took the days off work and kids took the days off school to attend church services. Feasts were a social time. The Feast of Tabernacles meant a trip somewhere and a tithe was saved all year to fund it. Church services were held in convention centers and other rented halls or rooms all around the world.
In Toronto, our local Feast of Tabernacles site was Niagara Falls but my parents favored the sites in Florida. Florida had the attraction of Disney World and Busch Gardens and the beach and the plane trip. But it didn't have my friends so I always felt edgy, like I was missing something and that when I got back, my best friend, who had gone to Niagara Falls, would have had a funner time. “Feast flings” were common and many single adults used the time to try to find a mate. (Naturally, we weren't allowed to marry outside the church.) There were lots of officially organized activities as well as countless hotel room parties.
Alcohol was never prohibited by the church so our Feasts were truly festive. I remember one Feast when I was in my early twenties and the first place my best friend and I went to when we got to Niagara Falls was the liquor store. Nothing delicate for us. It was tequila and gin and vermouth and we mixed some pretty mean martinis! I remember one young man commenting on the strength of our cocktails, half-impressed, half-alarmed.
There were also stories of the ministers and their hotel room parties. Lots of drinking, but more along the lines of wine and champagne. They were pretty exclusive, not too much mixing with the regular folks, so they were talked about with a tone of awe. The official teaching was that the ministers had an extra-measure of God's spirit.
There was an even more sordid side to the Feast which it took me til my mid-twenties to become aware of. The worst thing a WCG kid could do was fornicate. I mean, murder under certain circumstances might be understood, but fornication was unforgivable. The Feast, which was supposed to picture God's future millennial kingdom on earth, was often the place most likely for WCG teens and singles to commit the unpardonable sin. Something about new people and hotel rooms and lots of booze and money flowing. It just seemed to happen a lot.
by Born-again Atheist on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 11:05pmThis note is dedicated to Christians and theists who wish to argue, debate or discuss religion with Atheists. I am going to help you do that by addressing a few fundamental errors many Christians make in their assumptions about Atheism:
1. "ATHEISM IS JUST ANOTHER KIND OF FAITH." False. "Theism" means belief in at least one god or deity, and the prefix "a-" means "lack of." That's it. All "atheism" means, and has ever meant, is a lack of faith in all gods. To argue to the contrary demonstrates an ignorance of the English language and merely damages one's own credibility.
2. "ATHEISTS ARE 'DARWINISTS' (I.E. EVOLUTIONISTS) AND VICE VERSA." False, on multiple levels. Firstly, "Darwinist" used in this way is merely an insult (like calling a Christian a "Jesus Freak" or "Bible-Thumper.") Secondly, Atheism and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. There are many people who believe in Evolution who also believe in a god, including many Christians. Most Atheists do believe in Evolution, but not because of their atheism. Again, Atheism is merely the lack of a certain kind of belief, and does not imply a belief in anything else. Science, Evolution and Atheism are not all one in the same, and insisting on such things is merely ignorant and insulting.
3. "ALL ATHEISTS ACTUALLY DO HAVE FAITH." True. Yes, I said true! In fact, generally speaking, all people have some kind of "faith," just not necessarily a religious faith. One definition of faith is simply confidence in a person or thing. I have faith that when I sit down, my chair will hold me. This is usually a reasonable faith because it is based on prior experience that can be objectively confirmed (i.e. my chair is holding me as I type this.) Another definition is a general belief in something without evidence for that belief. That is not necessarily religious, either. It is, however, against reason. As anyone can know, not all Atheists are reasonable people, as some merely hate religion out of personal feelings. It is not Atheism but reason that is, by its nature, generally opposed to any belief without evidence (religious or otherwise).
4. "I HAVE PROOF/EVIDENCE THAT MY FAITH IS TRUE." False. If you did have objectively verifiable proof, your belief would no longer be "faith;" rather, it would be a reasonable, evidence-based belief. If you refuse to accept even that fact, then you're functioning on your own personal definitions of words, which only serves to prevent others from understanding you.
5. "ATHEISTS JUST DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE OF GOD." Maybe. Again, Atheism is merely the lack of religious faith. It is reason that is against forming beliefs solely on faith (religious or otherwise.) If you believe you have actual evidence of a god's existence, most reasonable people will be skeptical, but should want to hear you out. The problem is that you probably don't. Most people who claim to have evidence of a god don't know what "evidence" means. It is not a challenge to Evolution or any other beliefs, because even if you proved all other beliefs wrong, you still haven't even addressed your own belief, let alone proven it correct. This is why reasonable people insist that you "stay on-point." Anecdotes of personal experiences are also not evidence. Even if your story is 100% true, if there's nothing for you to hold in your hand and show for it, then there's no way for anyone else to evaluate the validity of it. No matter how convincing it may feel, a story is not evidence that another story is true. This is also why going back to Scripture to "prove" its validity is also not evidence. Can I prove Odin is real just by using logical-sounding rhetoric to make his story sound reasonable? Or Paul Bunyan? Or even people that did exist, like Abraham Lincoln? Citing a book, telling stories, or quoting other people isn't evidence of anything.
6. "ATHEISTS ACCUSE ME OF BEING IGNORANT/UNREASONABLE OUT OF PREJUDICE." Maybe. All people are given to stereotyping. We're all human and fallible. But these words are not always prejorative (meant to insult). "Ignorant" merely means "without knowledge." We are all ignorant of most things. A reasonable person will agree to that fact. Part of the problem with "reasonable" is that "reason" has many definitions. In the context of a debate on religion, the commonly accepted understanding is that "reason" means forming beliefs based on objective evidence. Claiming that having a religious faith makes one "unreasonable" in the sense that "smart people can't believe in a god" is prejorative, and easy to confuse with simply stating that a religious faith is "beyond reason," that is to say, not based on objective evidence. It's always easy to assume one knows what another person is saying without really listening to him or her, and we are all susceptible to this human flaw. But "assume" makes an "ass" out of both "u" and "me." You can be "reasonable" in all other ways and still maintain a personal faith in your god, which is your human right; and unless you are acting in an unreasonable manner, no one has any standing to claim otherwise. Stand on that fact when dealing with reasonable people, because they should at least be open to it as a possibility, lest they forfeit any right to call themselves "reasonable."
I hope this is of help to anyone who reads it. Some things need to be agreed upon and set aside in this, arguably the most important, debate. If we cannot agree on any of these foundational concepts, then what hope have we for agreeing on anything at all?
