PCG: California Storm Damage Due To Fact State Of CA Attacked The Living God In 1979

That magical god of Armstrongism is constantly being called forth by the many COG false prophets and getting blamed for any recent natural disaster to hit the world,  but particularly if it happens in the United States, and even better if it happens in California.

Brad McDonald, a Philadelphia Church of God minister, let the "god is angry" spittle fly once again when he had to talk about the recent fires and landslides in California.

McDonald writes:

Perhaps you’ve heard that Southern California this week is experiencing terrible flooding and mudslides. Whenever a catastrophe like this happens, it’s easy to simply note the particulars and move on, not giving much thought to the human suffering. For me, it was when Johnson said, “We don’t know where [the baby] came from.” Imagine a sleeping toddler swept from its crib (and family), carried away violently, and eventually deposited in an unfamiliar place under four feet of cold, wet mud.

This is California. One month it’s drought and massive wildfires; the next it’s torrential rain, flooding and mudslides. Peppered in between are crises like the Oroville Dam crisis, enduring drug and crime problems, and debilitating debt. Meanwhile, the tectonic plates beneath the state continue to creak and groan, hinting disconcertingly that another massive earthquake is imminent.

With each crisis, one question comes further into focus: Is California cursed?

A strong case can be made proving that California’s demise began in the late 1980s. On Oct. 17, 1989, a massive earthquake rattled Northern California. The Loma Prieta quake caused 63 deaths, more than 3,500 injuries, and billions of dollars’ worth of damage. It occurred during Game 3 of a World Series that, interestingly, was between two California teams. The game (and earthquake) broadcasted live to millions of Americans.

In a sense, the “World Series earthquake” was a sign to the nation of the disasters, tumult and suffering that was to become routine in California over the next 30 years. It was a national sign that California was cursed. In May 1992, Los Angeles erupted in the worst riots in United States history. On Jan. 17, 1994, the Northridge earthquake killed 60 people, injured 9,000, and inflicted $20 billion worth of damage on Southern California. Both of these crises were “historic.”

Since the late 1980s, California has experienced one colossal—in many cases, “historic”—crisis after another: floods, drought, wildfires, mudslides, mass shootings, economic crisis, protests and riots. Exactlyone month ago we published an article on California’s historic wildfires, the worst in state history. In 2017, nearly 9,000 fires burned 1.2 million acres of California, destroying more than 10,000 structures and impacting tens of thousands of people.

As the wildfires raged, it was common to hear people—average, nonreligious people—discussing the fires in apocalyptic terms. Many seriously wondered if the fires were a sign from God, or a sign that the world was about to end. But now that the fires have died down, most people have moved on. California’s apocalypse, many believe, is over (unless you live in Southern California).

But is it?   from You Need to Know: Is California Cursed? January 10, 2018

There is a method to his madness as to where he is going with this. California has always been the COG's favourite whipping post. From liberals to gays to everything in between, the church found fault with everything. All of that pales in comparison as to the real reason California has had several crises over the years.  The reason CA is in such a mess is because it attacked the Living God when it launched its lawsuit against the corrupt administration of the Worldwide Church of God when it tried to seek accountability to the millions and millions of dollars flowing through the church coffers  that was being squandered on all kinds of things.

According to Gerald Flurry, when the State attacked the church, they attacked the Living God himself!  When that happened, Flurry's god got really really angry and started punishing the citizens of the state in revenge.

Gerald Flurry writes:

In an overt attack against Mr. Armstrong, the state of California, through the attorney general’s office, launched a massive lawsuit against the WCG in 1979. On January 3, that office initiated a sudden, armed assault on the Pasadena headquarters, in an attempt to claim ownership of the Church’s property and assets as well as its continuing income—in violation of the U.S. Constitution. A receiver, secretly appointed by the court, tried to take over and operate God’s Church. Completely false, outrageous and baseless allegations of financial mismanagement were made—despite financial and all other required records having been regularly and voluntarily filed. No evidence of wrongdoing was ever found, and on October 14, 1980, the attorney general dropped all charges and dismissed the case. Later, the higher appellate court ruled that the lawsuit was without foundation.

California is the only state that ever attacked Mr. Armstrong and his work. Actually, it attacked a lot more than that. California really ATTACKED THE LIVING GOD!

Is God now intensely cursing California for its attack against the living God’s work under Herbert W. Armstrong?

“Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom. 12:19). Is God now taking vengeance against that state for what it did to His work? Yes, He is! And California is only the beginning.

The sooner we repent, the sooner the curses will end.  From Is California  Under a Curse?  December 2003 Trumpet

McDonald also includes this absurd comment about how his god may get really pissed on January 16th, the date of Herbert Armstrong's death.

It wouldn’t be a surprise if California was pummeled again really soon; maybe even around January 16 or 17? (the anniversary of the death of Herbert W. Armstrong).

How the Truth About Tithing Was Suppressed (And Still Is) In The Church of God

"Hello. Ted? This is Bob... Remember that tithing research? 

I think we're going to have problems with Harry."

There has been a great discussion on the Ambassador College Alumni site about tithing and how one man, through much research, proved that tithing was not an Old Covenant or New Covenant command for church members.  Of course, this did not sit well with an administration who survived on tithing.

The man who did this research was Harry Eisenberg.

From Ambassador Report 1

Editor: At beautiful, serene Ambassador College a person who is too concerned about truth may suddenly find himself living in a hostile environment. His personal quest for truth may not be regarded as dangerous or heretical as long as his voice is not heard by too many people; but if he is eloquent, or in a position to influence minds in the Ambassador entity, then his quest for truth will be regarded as a great threat.

After Ambassador College ascended to a position of limited prestige among fundamentalist institutions, and while in the midst of accumulating perhaps the most effective propaganda machinery of all such institutions, there occurred the simultaneous accident of accepting a student who regarded the acknowledgement of truth as paramount.

By the time this happened, Garner Ted Armstrong had become a major industry. The Worldwide Church of God had become Ted's religious arm of global influence and the church's Doctrinal Committee had become an efficient oppressor of truth.

The following account, written by Harry Eisenberg, is an account of character assassination. It clearly explains how truth is suppressed inside the Ambassador entity and how the one who discovers it must become silent, giving way to the personal doctrines of those in power, or be removed.
Before his discovery, Harry Eisenberg was an employee of Ambassador College. He is the author of eight major articles published for Ambassador under his by-line, as well as the author of numerous articles written for others or published under no by-line. Here is his story:

Quite by coincidence I am writing this article on the main campus of the University of Maryland. As is the case with virtually every other institution of higher learning, considerable research into both the sciences and humanities has been undertaken here. The purpose of the university is not only to educate students, but to provide new knowledge and answers to questions affecting our society.

Colleges and universities have in fact been the major vehicle for providing society with new knowledge in just about every field. The student, especially the graduate student, is on campus not only to absorb knowledge, but also to make a contribution to the body of knowledge extant in his particular field. To use a familiar phrase, he is expected to give as well as to get!

One would think this principle should hold true for Ambassador College as well. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. This is due to a basic difference between Ambassador College and other institutions of higher learning.

Whereas most universities exist to promote the advancement of knowledge and to pass it on to their students, Ambassador College exists to promulgate to the public the knowledge and values of its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong. New discoveries and/or contributions to knowledge are often not welcome there. For one thing, such new discoveries are not, generally speaking, in keeping with the primary aim, which is the dissemination of existing knowledge. Furthermore, should any new concept uncovered through the research of a faculty member or student conflict even remotely with the views of the founder, such research is utterly unwelcome, as Herbert Armstrong's views are regarded as sacrosanct and inspired.

For example, one student wrote a research paper for an Ambassador theology class, claiming that the scriptures speak of a spirit in animals as well as a spirit in man. He provided considerable evidence to support his contention. Upon presenting the paper to his instructors, the student was urged to keep his ideas to himself. It seems the spirit in man and the idea that animals differ from man is a pet concept of Mr. Armstrong's, and the theology instructors were afraid to present the Student's findings to him.

The following semester the student was not allowed to register for classes and was expelled from the college. He was charged with the crime of "highbrowing the ministers", whatever that means. The loss was Ambassador's, not the student's.

I was a paid researcher on the staff of Ambassador College for over four years. Generally speaking, my work involved providing "proofs" for the pet concepts and theories held by Mr. Herbert Armstrong and/or his son, Garner Ted. Occasionally, I was successful as in the case of an article entitled "Did Jesus Have Long Hair?" This article attempted to show that there is historical evidence proving that Jesus did not necessarily wear long hair, as he is often pictured today.

My article was widely reprinted and resulted in a personal full-page interview in a major Los Angeles daily. It was one of few articles which have cast Ambassador College in a good light. It was met with complete silence by an administration which feels any publicity should he its own private realm.

In January 1973, I was asked by my supervisor, Brian Knowles, to research the subject of tithing. In particular, Mr. Knowles was interested in learning who paid what to whom and how in ancient Israel.

And so I began a systematic study of the tithing doctrine by listing each Biblical verse which in any way refers to tithing. What followed was a study of commentaries, encyclopedias arid various historical sources. The result was inevitable! I came to see that the tithing concept as promulgated by Ambassador College and the Worldwide Church of God was contrary to both the Old and the New Testaments.

Scripture makes it plain that the right to collect tithes was given to the Levitical priesthood in exchange for their service in the Temple. There is no evidence that this right was ever passed on to the New Testament Church. The Encyclopedias BRITANNICA and AMERICANA both confirm this view when they state the early New Testament Church did not practice tithing, although it was later adopted by the Catholic Church in the Sixth Century A.D.

Upon presenting the research paper to my supervisor, I was treated in a manner reminiscent of Galileo's encounter with the Catholic Church. I was warned that I had better keep my findings and views to myself. Naturally, it was assumed that I had done the paper because I had some kind of ax to grind and was merely out to prove a previously held notion. Research at Ambassador so often has meant nothing more than finding "proofs" for the "inspired" concepts and ideas of the Armstrongs.

When I was asked to squelch my ideas, I pointed out that that might be difficult as four people had already seen the paper. I was told that if I would keep it down, a doctrinal committee (sic) would eventually consider my findings. Six months went by and about all that the so-called doctrinal committee accomplished can be seen by reading a booklet entitled MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE published briefly by Ambassador College in the summer of 1973.

When I concluded there was no reason why I should keep my paper from others, I proceeded to show it to anyone who inquired about it. Not believing I was the ultimate authority on the subject, I collaborated with a team of some six other Ambassador College researchers on a more in-depth paper on tithing which was completed in December 1973.

As a result of these papers and the fact that I no longer felt a religious compulsion to practice tithing, I was dismissed, without warning, from my job on January 7, 1974. This happened despite the fact that my new supervisor, Dr. Robert Kuhn, acknowledged that I had done outstanding work for him. So much for religious freedom at Ambassador College.

The paper in question was ultimately published with minor modifications by both the Foundation for Biblical Research and the Associated Churches of God. Some open-minded researchers for a newly reconstructed doctrinal committee which was investigating tithing confided to me that any thesis or dissertation from reputable theological institutions that they had the opportunity to examine dealing with the subject in question, tended to agree with my findings.

Finally, in a meeting called to investigate the origin of the papers published by the Foundation and Associated Churches, I was publicly slandered by Ambassador President, Garner Ted Armstrong. Armstrong stated, "Now I don't express it as assassination of Harry's character-it is his mind I'm worried about and not his character. I'm not a bit worried about his personal integrity or his personal habits nor his personal sincerity, but I'm not prepared to say he is the most balanced individual mentally, and that I would rely an awful lot on his research."

But he had been relying "an awful lot on his research". Just weeks before, Armstrong had been parroting my findings on his television program seen by millions in the U.S. and Canada. Furthermore, many of these programs were repeated on the air over and over again. On more than one occasion, articles bearing the by-line of Garner Ted Armstrong but researched by me appeared in fire PLAIN TRUTH magazine.

Only when my findings disagreed with Armstrong's private views was my research no longer reliable and the writer fit for ridicule. But such are the risks that anyone takes who might dare disagree with the administration.

-Harry Eisenberg

Editor: Harry's efforts to obtain the truth about tithing represented a special threat to the Ambassador administration. It is the one threat Ambassador fears the most-the threat of individual integrity asserting itself over Ambassador's aristocratic corporate structure.

Consequently, on January 7, 1974, Harry Eisenberg's hopes of a fair hearing for tithing research died by committee. Harry's voice, as well as his research, had to be removed from among the followers.
The Ambassador College Board of Trustees found nothing sinister about Harry's removal. Ministers and students who had liked him apparently found nothing objectionable in his being disfellowshipped. "He was a youth overly exposed to satanic doctrines, demonic thoughts goaded him into an attitude of rebellion. Nothing unusual in that." It ended, however, in his dismissal from an organization to which he had dedicated his life.

The announcement of Harry's termination took less than a few seconds. There was no risk that the doctrinal committee would expose the true reasons for Harry's dismissal because members of that committee had been a party to it. There was no risk of exposure from members of the Ambassador-controlled media because a few words about the "Ambassador Oasis" from the charismatic Ted Armstrong and the students would inquire no further. They would not try to digest the indigestible, think the unthinkable, or question Pilate about the removal of a Christian.

No, on January 7, 1974, all seemed well. In fact, things seemed better than ever. And, in short time, the people would again be reminded that "God's work is moving ahead stronger than ever."