COG Felon Ron Weinland Says That COG Members Who Become God's Will Be Dangerous If They Were To Baptize People

Ron Weinland, has been languishing away in federal prison over the last year pinning for the day he is released.  When that day happens he is expecting a huge work to progress to the point where he baptizes hundreds of thousands of new COG members who will flock to him.  Weinland sounds just as silly as David C. Pack.  Pack said the same thing a month or so ago and was proven to be a liar.  Weinland is already a liar, so who is to be believed?

Over the past several years, not only were individuals ordained in many regions where God was calling more people, but also God revealed the need to expand His ministry and teach them how to fulfill their roles so that they would be ready for a “future work.” God led His Church to see that there would soon be a time when He would begin calling large masses of people into His Church, once the final Trumpets begin being fulfilled. Today, God’s Church is prepared to baptize large numbers, even hundreds of thousands, over a short period of time. Also, God has since revealed that although this process will begin just before the Millennium is established, the greatest impact of this will be accomplished in the very beginning of the Millennium.

These PKG members who turn into "god's" in Weinerdudes "kingdom" will be so powerful that they pose an immediate threat to humans if they were to baptize.  Only "fleshly" ministers can baptize.  These are men and women who apparently missed the boat in becoming "god's."

Although some who are in the ministry today will be part of the 144,000, they will not be involved in baptizing once they are in the Kingdom of God. The job of performing baptisms is for ministers who are physical, as it would not be spiritually healthy for people to be baptized by members of the God Family, Elohim.

Dennis Muses on "Science, falsely so called."

1 Timothy 6:19-21

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

¹⁹ In this way they will treasure up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may lay hold of the real life.

²⁰ Oh, Timothy! Keep safe what has been entrusted to you. Turn away from the ungodly babblings and the argumentative opposition of what is falsely called “knowledge.” ²¹ For many who promise this “knowledge” have missed the mark, as far as the faith is concerned. Grace be with you.

1 Timothy 6:19-21

King James Version (KJV)

¹⁹ Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

²⁰ O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

²¹ Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

As usual, we are not told just exactly the problem was here in the Church.  We aren't told what constitutes vain babblings, fake knowing or science , falsely so called.  These scriptures can be used to resist any idea one does not agree with and are often used so. 

This quote on "science, falsely so called" is telling and typical of literalists who are frightened, intimidated and pis..., angered by the implications of science done well.  This quote goes beyond stupid and is full of lies that the author needs to believe to cope with science done well which threatens his world.

"I’ll go even further: science cannot speak with any authority about when the universe began, how it came into being, or how life originated on earth. Science by definition deals with what can be observed, tested, measured, and investigated by empirical means. Scientific data by definition are facts that can be demonstrated by controlled, repeatable experiments that always yield consistent results. The beginning of the universe by its very nature falls outside the realm of scientific investigation.

To state the case plainly: there is no scientific way to explain creation. No one but God actually observed creation. It did not happen by any uniform, predictable, observable, repeatable, fixed, or natural laws. It was not a natural event or a series of natural events. The initial creation of matter was an instantaneous, monumental, inexplicable miracle—the exact opposite of a “natural” phenomenon. And the formation of the universe was a brief series of supernatural events that simply cannot be studied or explained by science. There are no natural processes involved in creation; the act of creation cannot be repeated; it cannot be tested; and therefore naturalistic theories purporting to explain the origin and age of the universe are unverifiable.

In other words, creation is a theological issue, not a scientific one. Scripture is our only credible source of information about creation, because God Himself was the only eyewitness to the event. We can either believe what He says or reject it. But no Christian should ever imagine that what we believe about the origin of the universe is merely a secondary, nonessential, or incidental matter. It is, after all, the very starting point of God’s self-revelation."

http://www.gty.org/blog/B100513

"Science, falsely so called" is one of the great catch phrases and oft quoted ones used by those who simply cannot or will not consider anything other than "God did it" as the answer to how did this all come to be and how did we arrive here.  "God did it."  That's the answer to where did time and space come from.  It is the answer to how did the universe come to be , all the elements , the stars, the galaxies, the planets and life.   The above quote is probably one of the most ignorant and telling quotes I personally have ever read from a person who is trying ever so hard to bolster faith over facts and religion over science well done.  In my view, the bolded comments are simply lies and reveal a profound ignorance on the part of the one who simply cannot allow the concept of science well done to enter into the equation.  Equations are also scary to the ignorant fundamentalist thinker.

Most creationists argue against human origins emotionally and tend to revert  when not well studied or versed in the actual science done well to "God did it."   I think we are all familiar with the concept of "God said it. I believe it. That does it for me."   Well, that doesn't do it for me and while one can be accused by religionists as "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth...", I consider that a defensive statement spoken when one begins to fear that science done well or even theology , archaeology and history done well becomes very threatening to one's beliefs, which are not truths we should remember.  They are merely beliefs and for some, beliefs can change.  For others, they can not change because it is too threatening and frightening. The reason people argue endlessly over such topics is that one feels they had it all "figured out" and now here comes "science" or "theology" , falsely so called, to screw up my beliefs.  "What are you saying...I am wrong?"   Well, sometimes.  Aren't we all at times?

I grew up saying the Apostles Creed every week from the time I could talk. The Creed, of course, was not written or spoken by any of the original Apostles in the NT Church.  The concepts are too advanced and represent the evolution, may I use that word, of theological thought.  It is an article of faith not facts and theology, not science.  Not one sentence in the Creed can be proven to be true.  Every sentence in it is subject to questioning and is simply taken as a matter of faith.  That is ok.  It is religion after all.    I remember as a child asking  why, if we were Presbyterian, did we believe in the "the holy catholic church"?   That just meant "universal" evidently meaning the whole big church somewhere God only knows.  We didn't have to know where the church wasn't.  We just knew where it was and it was US.  I remained suspicious of the phrase all my life.  Everything the author of the above on his view of science, falsely so called , can be said of the religious and faith oriented Apostles Creed.   The emotional arguments related to science well done versus faith and theological issues are endless.  I don't tend to participate in them myself , even here on Banned, because they are so endless and fruitless.  No one says, or at least I ever read it here, "Amazing...I never thought of thought or knew that.  Thank you for the information. I will search it out more."  Well, I have heard it but it was in dripping sarcasm.

APOSTLES' CREED

I believe in God, the Father almighty,

      creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit

      and born of the virgin Mary.

      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,

      was crucified, died, and was buried;

      he descended to hell.

      The third day he rose again from the dead.

      He ascended to heaven

      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.

      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

      the holy catholic* church,

      the communion of saints,

      the forgiveness of sins,

      the resurrection of the body,

      and the life everlasting. Amen.

In my older years now, and one only gets older if you are lucky it seems, I can only speak for myself and my own  Creed of Science Done Well.  I appreciate science well done. Highly educated human beings today are not in the business of trying to make fools out of themselves or be considered as such.  While there is always "fringe science" much like the reality of "fringe religion", it is not the goal of scientists in any field to muck up or come to wrong conclusions. I assume it is also not the goal of literalist theologians either.   If they do, the research goes into the pool of knowing and the search continues.   I have grown up in a time where we have learned more in the last 50 years about the how and why of origins than in the previous 100,000 years.  My parents were taught the galaxy WAS the Universe.  Now we know better through the hard work of science done well.  

For decades I soaked in religion. As a child, I soaked in Sunday School and Church and knew most of the Bible, the stories and the characters very well, Old Testament and New,  before ever going into the Worldwide Church of God.  As a child I had shelves of astronomy and dinosaur books.  I spent countless hours as a child and teen at the local library looking sideways at books that may catch my interest. I libraried in the mornings and played hockey all afternoon anywhere I could find a good game.   I don't think I have changed much at all since being a kid and the ministry of the Worldwide Church did not change much of my perspectives on such things along the way.  The stories of creation and Adam and Eve had meaning to the Hebrews who wrote them which I have written about elsewhere, but they were not meant to be scientific in meaning.  The "science, falsely so called, " was not the science of today.  Whatever the writer of Timothy (it was probably not the Apostle Paul) was getting at, and they always never seemed to actually tell us what the problem actually was or the topic of that problem,  it was something that still after 2000 years was not something about science well done.  The problem could have been astrology or the ideas of well read pagan philosophers of the day, but it is not stated.  

I can only think off hand of three problems actually defined in the New Testament as troublesome to the church.  Some were teaching the resurrection was already past, go figure.  Some were teaching that Jesus had not really come in the flesh which seems odd at such an early date and some were mockers concerning the delayed coming of Jesus.  There were other problems of course, but these three stand out as odd problems for the young church.  I always thought thinking Jesus had not really come in the flesh was like denying Elvis or John Kennedy of just a few years ago and that those who got antsy about the promises of Jesus coming again were correct after all.  I have no idea why one would teach the resurrection was a thing of the past in such an early stage of the church but then again I have never figured out just how "nature itself teaches us it is a shame for a man to have long hair."  Go tell Mr. Lion.

At any rate, here is MY Creed.  It does not have to be YOURS.  We are all where we are on whatever the path is.  There is NO chance in this life that any group of people on this earth, religious or otherwise can "all speak the same thing."  There is almost no other more ignorant verse in the New Testament as to how people actually are.  To "all speak the same thing," one would have to be brain dead and hold no personal views.  To "all speak the same thing," one would have to lie to themselves and be one way to the group and hide personal beliefs and doubts about the group way of being behind a mask of compliance.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE IF NOT DEPRESSING TO THINK THAT ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO ALL SPEAK AND BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS.  To me, that has always been spoken by those who put themselves in charge and want compliance to THEIR thinking.  In the real world, this is just not a healthy way to be as an individual.  It is an impossible goal and suspect at best when the bully pulpit tell the congregation how they must think.   A Dave Pack comes to mind along with far too many others.  

I speak my truth.  You can speak yours.

The Science Done Well Creed

I believe that something Banged and it was Big

I believe that whatever banged has banged many times before creating other universes, both parallel and multi.

I believe there is much more to be learned about this in the thousands of years to come

I believe that what banged produced the hydrogen needed for stars to form , live and die.

I believe that stars that died produced all the elements seen today in our world sufficient to produce billions of galaxies each with billions of planets. 

I believe that life must be everywhere in the Universe, in many forms

I believe this is not the only Universe

I believe life evolves and our Universe took 13.7 billion years to do it. 

I believe that in our genes and in our bodies lie the remnants of countless lifeforms before us.   

I believe in my inner fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal,  ape, Homo  habilis, Erectus, Neanderthalis and Sapien

I believe the trigeminal nerve is so convoluted and long because the fossil record shows our inner ear bones originated in the jawbones of reptiles long past. 

I believe it when told Europeans have 2-4% Neanderthal Genes in their spit

I believe humans uniquely have come to be conscious and aware that we are aware

I believe our conscious awareness that we have a limited shelf life and will die has produced most of our religious needs and thinking.  

I believe religious anger and wars are the results of the threatening nature of the beliefs of others and how it upsets our worldview

I believe science done well threatens theology done badly

I believe in the mystery of human consciousness and the wonder of it all

I believe I am stardust and in science done well

I believe beliefs can change as knowledge increases

I believe that knowledge that increases is a sign of the end for ignorance about just what and who we are in the Universe

I believe in the vast differences between Religion and Spirituality

I believe what I learned in Sunday School about the Bible being earthly stories with heavenly meanings.

I believe what i have since learned about not all earthly stories portray literal events

I believe in the vast differences between Literalism and Reality

I believe reality is always our friend

I believe I like that...

What's Your Creed?

(You know...the one deep inside you and not dictated by others...)