Do Preachers Believe What they Preach? Do the Preached to Believe All They Hear?

Yes, of course, most do but a genuine and critical thinker will have their moments. Then facts will either overtake faith or faith repress the facts in my personal experience.

Were and are men in the One Man Show Ministries  like Herbert Armstrong, Garner Ted,  Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry and Ron Weinland sincere? Did and  do they personally and sincerely believe, I mean deep down believe, that what they say, believe and do?  Do they ever have their moments?  Do you?

Do Dave Pack and Gerald Flurry really believe they are spoken of in scripture?  Did Ron Weinland really believe 2008 was it?  Does Bob Thiel really believe, I mean really down deep believe he is the One True Church on Earth and he it's one true prophet?  Does he ever doubt "double portion" threw him down a rabbit hole?

Do people really truly believe that others, not them, will burn and fry and scream and cry for eternity in a Hell fire or deserve being thrown off a cliff into the Lake of Fire?  Or do we just kid ourselves on that stuff?  Most I know have doubts but also fears expressing them. I can't imagine members in Pack's, Flurry's or Weinland's fanatical church believe all they hear.  Most just quietly wait with a "we'll see."  Why do they do that?  The price of being mistaken in Dave's church is going to be very high.

Here are a few opinions on the question "Do Preachers believe what they preach?"

"Is the sun a planet? Is the moon a star? Is the earth yellow and full and made of cheese? "

'I would like to think pastors believe in what they preach, but truthfully it is dependent on the individual pastor. The one thing we tend to forget is that the pastor is human which means the pastor is subject to the same temptations as ordinary people"

"Most do some don't. Those that don't just keep doing it probably because they're worried about what others would think. Also, they're obviously not there for "money" because you don't really become a pastor for the great salary that it pays"

"yeah they spend their lives convincing themselves"

In the interest of transparency and as long as I can look back on my own experience with the topic  It's only fair I answer the question myself. I'll be as brief as possible. 

As a teen, believing I was to be in ministry, yes I was very sincere and believed what I read. It was the Bible after all and I grew up with "the Bible says" in spades. I was a sincere believing AC student. An outsider for sure and I recall the first words out of my mouth to a Men's Club icebreaker were "I don't know all the church teaches or why but I have read enough to want to find out."  

I felt strongly about being in the ministry because my dad shared with me AFTER I told him I was going to be in it and heading first to Minneapolis that when he realized his first born son, my brother, was as damaged as he was, dad prayed that , "If you give me a healthy son, you can have him."  Smultsy I know, but evidently I was God's answer to my dad's prayer. I have never been sure he should have told me that as it may have kept me in ministry longer than I personally wanted to be as the drama and trauma of WCG unfolded. 

I believed the basics. Second Coming, Baptism, preaching the Gospel, living the life, Holydays and Sabbath.  In hindsight it all pointed to a better future. It was the 60's and 70's after all. How much longer can this go on?

But over the years, I have to say I believed it less and less as I studied more and more into the origins etc of the Bible. The lost career wish of paleontology, cosmology etc that also was a part of me from my youth called to me and I lost my view of Bible literalism. I also saw contradictions and after pastoring thousands, religion didn't really change us much.

The ministry was boring to me personally as well. There was no room for innovation and dealing with the findings of science vs the Bible. Churches can't do that with set beliefs. It is the "faith restrictions" that keep it all in place. I don't think that way and learned that I truly am not faith based but rather evidence based in my thinking. I came into the church because it seemed to provide evidence but as I grew older, it was just faith not evidence that is was so.

I did not give sermons, however, on things I did not believe.  I skipped over British Israelisms, Divine Healing with no medical considerations, divorce and remarriage issues until they changed to what they should have been to begin with, The Place of Safety and whether the air in your tires counted as leavening...

At times I drank too much, a skill I learned mostly in my Chicago experience at 24ish. I never drank a thing until I went to AC and then sparingly "for my health."  The ministry?  Different story. I grew up around drink but I found that stress (I got caught up in "the East Coast Rebellion of 74", fired and rehired etc) made me withdraw and want to be left alone. Theological stress and the stress of the idealism of religion and actual behavior of humans was a challenge. I had no experience in it. It was not a part of my growing up religion and I had no coping skills. I did not sign up for all the shit WCG could dish out for minister to handle. 

I got a DUI  in the 90's when it all was reaching a bitter end for me, spent a night in a SC jail terrified and knew I had to get out of this whole mess and find some peace NOT in WCG and not in religion. It's hard to tell this but necessary. I accept my humanity and had no special feelings about being "the minister."  I never did drink much along the way. Just badly. I don't any longer. There seemed also to be a tendency in our history I was not aware of until it came up with others. In hindsight, I was badly handling the pressure and stress of seeing the church unravel and realizing I did not believe or have faith of any kind in any of it anymore.  Over drinking is a sign of personal stress and an indication that internal stress and issues are not being addressed head on. I tried pot in Oregon because it was legal and the store just down the street. I never smoked so opted for edibles. I soon could not recall what I just said or anyone just said so conversation was futile. I went to bed. Got that out of my system and curiosity! lol.  I have to say, the shops were set up like jewelry stores and pharmacies. Very cool. 

So the best I can say is that I personally was sincere until I wasn't. Transitions are messy. Mine was very messy. Divorce that my wife did not deserve and more experiences, out of "no one is going to tell me what to do" all reactions to letting others tell me how it all is when it was not. I found comfort and understanding in a relationship outside "the rules" because no one inside the church listened or cared much what I felt or thought. I did and she did. 

I learned several time over the years in ministry not to naively trust my peers or the administration with personal feelings, thoughts and challenges.  It just never turned out right. I was criticized for being depressed and getting professional help. The encouragers were never encouraging. 

In hindsight It's probably why I wrote: https://ezinearticles.com/?Everyone-Wears-Masks---Your-Pastor-and-Priest,-Your-Mom,-Dad,-Family,-and-YOU!&id=168861

 I did not stay for the pay. The pay was not all that great and I never made what my dad did at Kodak even. My parents died at just under 100 and I credit that to them living in the same house for 78 years in the neighborhood they grew up in, never having to move and attending a sane local church up the street with lifetime friends. I stayed too long because I did care about the local church people.  I found out they did not care much for me and it got easier to leave them behind too.  When WCG went Protestant, it simple was not going to happen for me. The Wheel of Religion had been reinvented for me. Joe and others thought it all was Jesus performing a great miracle. 

Lots to share. Some pretty crazy but on with the posting...  There were failings of practicing what I preached, but often what I failed in, I did not preach either. I found myself very willing to listen, support and share with others in both ministry and member the same things they failed to practice but said they believed. I know lots of COG people, member and minister alike who failed to practice what they preach.  It's the challenge of being human in a should/should not, must/must not culture.

The topic has been studied and the painful  questions asked.

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2010/03/17/what-should-pastors-do-when-they-dont-believe-what-they-preach/

"With the help of a grant from a small foundation, administered through Tufts University, we set out to find some closeted nonbelievers who would agree to be intensively — and, of course, confidentially–interviewed… For this pilot study we managed to identify five brave pastors, all still actively engaged with parishes, who were prepared to trust us with their stories. All five are Protestants, with master’s level seminary education. Three represented liberal denominations (the liberals) and two came from more conservative, evangelical traditions (the literals)" 

The quotations from the pastors are heartbreaking. In some cases, they’ve been entrenched in their faith for so long that they don’t know what else to do. As one pastor puts it, it’s like trying to switch your major when you’re so close to graduating: Why not just finish up what you started?

Once you’re locked into the role, it’s very difficult to leave. 

Here’s what one pastor said:

“Here’s how I’m handling my job on Sunday mornings: I see it as play acting. I kind of see myself as taking on a role of a believer in a worship service, and performing. Because I know what to say. I know how to pray publicly. I can lead singing. I love singing. I don’t believe what I’m saying anymore in some of these songs. But I see it as taking on the role and performing. Maybe that’s what it takes for me to get myself through this, but that’s what I’m doing.”

What do all these pastors have in common? The authors write:

The loneliness of non-believing pastors is extreme. They have no trusted confidantes to reassure them, to reflect their own musings back to them, to provide reality checks. As their profiles reveal, even their spouses are often unaware of their turmoil. Why don’t they resign their posts and find a new life? They are caught in a trap, cunningly designed to harness both their best intentions and their basest fears to the task of immobilizing them in their predicament. Their salaries are modest and the economic incentive is to stay in place, to hang on by their fingernails and wait for retirement when they get their pension." 

So I simply ask if Dave Pack, Ron Weinland, Gerald Flurry and all others of course, actually believe down deep the stories they tell and the views they have of themselves. How can someone believe such insane teachings to begin with? How can a man be so consistently wrong and still preach with straight face?  How can a man see himself spoken of in the scriptures? How can you demand people give up all and follow THEM? What's wrong with those who follow them we might also ask?  Or are they stuck in place having said too much with no way out?

Even Paul, who promised a soon return of Jesus and told people how it all was going to be for them and how they should do or not do this or that because of time being short, seems not have been able to admit or face the fact he was mistaken. No apologies. No recognition save for "I have fought a good fight...there for there is laid up FOR ME...." it seems. Why is it so difficult to say "I was wrong-I'm sorry-Please forgive me-I love you."?   It's hard to back out of a mistake gracefully.

So...Do they really believe it. Are they really untouched by their own humanity?

How about you?

(I'm gonna regret pushing the publish button)

:)

My Best Teacher: And just for fun

Not one of the most memorable and best teachers and examples for me personally in my life was any fellow pastor and certainly not the Armstrongs.  It might have been my father of course. But looking back now and outside of my dad, it was Hidy Ochai, my karate instructor in Vestal, New York.  This is the only teacher I have ever met who was all that he appeared to be and lived the life he taught.  I honor him the most for his peaceful strength and philosophy of "No be there...BUT and IF you have to be there, then fight well."

Master Ochai turned down teaching Elvis karate when visiting Graceland and Elvis shot the Television with a pistol. He felt Elvis had a bad attitude and wasn't interested in teaching him his techniques after witnessing that.

Hidehiko "Hidy" Ochiai is a Japanese-born martial arts instructor, author, and actor. He is credited with establishing the Washin-Ryu style of karate in the United States in 1966. He was the winner of the United States Grand National Karate Championship five consecutive times.Ochiai was inducted into the Black Belt Hall of Fame twice—as Instructor of the Year for Japanese Arts in 1979 and as Man of the Year in 1980. He resides in Vestal, New York...

Master Ochai grew up on the outskirts of Hiroshima in during WW2.He recounted to me that after the Atomic Bomb destroyed Hiroshima he was led into town as a child by his father. They lived behind a hill that shielded them from the blast. He recalled seeing "little melted people" begging to die.

 He bore a scare that one rarely saw and only when he performed without his shirt that went half way around him from front to back. He said when he was a teen, another almost cut him in half with a  sword and he vowed that he'd never be that vulnerable again. 

I was asked to help him several times and the one time was just before leaving for the feast that afternoon. He's a small man and had me "attack" him in front of a High School audience on a wooden stage.  Next thing I know, he's got me up on his shoulders, spinning me around and throwing me to the wooden floor, which we are supposed to know how to do without dying. Needless to say I groaned all the way to the Feast that afternoon. LOL.  The good old days!  

I got transferred out of NY before getting the Black Belt but he did say that I had the heart of a Black Belt but not the experience. So we settled for Brown.  The mention of the Brown Belt to a rather unstable perspective member who was angry because I was not happy with his scripture covered hooded robe he preached in and blocked my way out of the apartment with "I know Karate" helped a lot.  I said that I had just come from my own Brown Belt class and just kindly stared into his eyes.  He let me pass.  Then he went ballistic. 

Anyway, just for fun and to honor my best life teacher because I can...

  I witnessed Sensei Ochai do this several times and it is genuine and extremely dangerous. He did not allow a student to be under his sword ever that I knew of. .  He always asked his son to do the demonstration with him. 

 When sparing with him once, he hit me and failed to acknowledge it as required. He stopped and said "Mr Diehl, I got you."  Unwisely and before thinking I said, "I did not see it."  Oops.... We quietly returned to sparing and within a second or two he had his foot up against my cheek and slowly moved my head to the side as he said, "Mr. Diehl...you see that?"  lol.  

"Yes, Sensei"

Don't Try This at Home

Anyone actually have another human being, in the church or out who qualified as your best teacher and example? Anyone get your through tough times or listen well?

Straining at Gnats and Swallowing Gnats: Rabbi Thiel Blows His Shofar on The Feast of Trumpets

Rabbi Thiel

"Yes, trumpets are blown on the Feast of Trumpets–which Jews later changed the name for their observance to Rosh Hashana.

It should be mentioned that some Jewish sages have pointed to the first day of the seventh month of the calendar, which begins at sunset September 29, 2019, as the day the earth was created. Others, like those the Temple Institute referred to, point to it being the day Adam and Eve were created. However, since Hebrew calendar rules do not  allow the first day of the seventh month to be on what we now call Friday (since the Sabbath is the next day), their sages pointing to human creation on that day makes no sense. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day of the week (cf. Genesis 1:26-30), the day we call Friday. Thus, some of their sages are in conflict with that.

Speaking of conflicts and dates, although the Jews claim the year 5779 ended at sunset today, that is actually off by a couple of centuries."

https://www.cogwriter.com/news/religious-news/temple-institute-rosh-hashana-5780-a-day-of-sounding-the-shofar-cogwriter-shofar-blowing-yes-but-the-jewish-year-is-off-by-2-century

"New Covenant? New Testament?  Don't see no New Covenant.  ?What is this "New Testament" you speak of?"

"All that being said, the Feast of Trumpets runs from sunset September 29th through sunset September 30th in 2019. And we are about 2 centuries closer to the end of the 6,000 years than the Jews are proclaiming."

Rabbi Thiel

"200,000? Nope... Don't see no 200,000.  6000...That's it...6000."

"Ok, I got Good News and I got Bad News.

The Bad News is that we are 150,000 years to early and Salvation is unavailable to us. There is no "plan" for us. 

The Good News is we don't have to give up to 30% of our hunt to other tribes, walk to the coast for the Feast of Crude Dwellings during hunting season or, as single men, bring a watermelon to the tribal gatherings or go without food for a day to show the gods we are humble men.  We go enough without food anyway...  

We also, so I hear, are lucky we are too early for something called "Dearlordnotthisagainwe'veheardthisathousandtimes!?"

So we should rejoice in our misfortune."

The Heterodox Racial Soteriology of Herbert W. Armstrong

Facial reconstruction of a Galilean (BBC) 

The traditional Western view of Jesus. 

“Jesus Christ was born of the tribe of Judah, 

and it was necessary that he be of the original pure racial strain, 

even as Noah was.”

 Herbert W. Armstrong, “Mystery of the Ages”, 1985, p. 173. 

Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA) departed from orthodox Christianity when he wrote, without scriptural support, that the attribute of racial purity was an essential part of Christ’s nature as a valid sacrifice for humanity. To understand the foundation of this idea in heterodoxy it is necessary to unpack HWA’s statement quoted above.

The Chimera of Racial Purity

Most races that we define today stem from a historical confluence of peoples. For example, Western Europeans, including the British, are known to consist of three quite diverse groups: early Hunters and Gathers, later Agriculturalists and recent Steppe Pastoralists. Each of these groups is represented by a different haplogroup. A technical measure called “genetic distance” may be used to create racial categories but then how distant do two groups of people need to be? And genetic distance does not always correspond to appearance, the measure that most people understand and use. 

Was, then, Christ of a pure racial background? Christ was a member of the Haplogroup J people who lived in the Middle East. Haplogroup J people have identifiable Neanderthal ancestry in their genomes. Neanderthals are beyond being another race – they are a different hominid species. Genetic studies of Arabs (“Indigenous Arabs are Descendants of the Earliest Split from Ancient Eurasian Populations,” Genome Research, 2016 Feb; 26(2): 151–162), a typical Haplogroup J people, indicate that they are less Neanderthal than Europeans and Asians but more Neanderthal than Africans. The haplogroup J people of the Middle East were mixed with Neanderthal ancestry long before Christ was born. Genetics tells the truth. We cannot look at the Biblical genealogies and assert that Jesus was racially pure on that basis. Just as you cannot look at your own personal genealogy and claim racial purity. If you doubt the veracity of this, then have yourself tested using a genetic service that identifies Neanderthal ancestry. 

The Theology of Race in Armstrongism

Herbert W. Armstrong wrote of the importance of race in his beliefs in his book entitled “The Mystery of the Ages (MOA).” He explains that one of the credentials of Israel as the Chosen People was racial purity, whatever the term “race” meant to him. He states the very choosing of Israel by god was likely because they were “of the White racial strain, unchanged since creation” (MOA, P. 166). And racial intermarriage was forbidden to them by god. They were not to intermarry among “the dark Canaanites” then in the land. In a previous Op Ed, I discussed the incontrovertible evidence that Canaanites were not Blacks but were of the same haplogroup as Jews and would be indistinguishable in appearance from Jews. To make it clear, Jews and Canaanites are of the same race and all the scriptures HWA quotes to support the prohibition of racial intermarriage were really scriptures about marrying outside of religion. Black people within Armstrongism have been done a great and harmful disservice by this false theology. 

With this background, it is not difficult to see why HWA would stipulate racial purity for Jesus. It is understood that Christ was supposed to be a Lamb without blemish. And Jesus was without physical defect. HWA’s extension to include racial purity in the concept of being “without blemish” is not based on scripture but likely derived from the viewpoints prevalent in right-leaning American society at the time. 

New Testament Theology

HWA’s views on Jesus’ racial purity are in contradiction to Pauline theology. Paul wrote in Philippians 3:4–8:

“If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews … But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ … and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ …”

Here Paul does not classify his own indisputable racial purity (a Hebrew of Hebrews) as an important attribute in his imitation of Christ. Christians are to pattern themselves after Jesus, yet Paul is willing to discard his own fleshly racial purity and count it as a loss in pursuit of that spiritual pattern. If racial purity were essential to Christ and, hence, Christians as followers of Christ, would Paul dare class it as “rubbish”? Paul’s view is rather that his own racial purity is a personal attribute that could stand between him and Christ. Racial purity in Pauline theology is clearly not a special kind of spiritual credential for godliness and righteousness or a condition that would validate Christ as a sacrifice. 

The Ethnocentric View of Christ as the Source of this Error

HWA is dead and cannot be asked about his motivations behind his heterodox belief about Jesus’ racial purity. A speculative answer is that HWA’s views have to do with the protection of the status of White people as pre-eminent above other people in Armstrongist beliefs. Armstrongists believe that god is racially White and that Adam was a White man who reflected the physical, bodily image of god. There is, perhaps, a fear that if Jesus is not White in his exemplary qualities, White privilege will be jeopardized. Jesus, in fact, was a Jew. He was not an Ashkenazi Jew. Ashkenazi Jews did not exist in Jesus’ day. Ashkenazi Jews are from 30% to 60% European and this shows in their appearance. Jesus was a first century Palestinian Jew. He was short, olive-skinned, brown eyed and had very curly hair. With this blatantly “Gentile” appearance, he probably would not have been admitted to Ambassador College and he probably would not have been appointed Spokesman Club President or Vice President. He might have even been compelled to attend the Spanish Fun Night at the Feast of Tabernacles.
Epilogue



NEO

Epilog 

I do not advocate racial intermarriage but it is clearly not a sin. I think that marriage, the challenging union of two disparate human wills, is difficult enough without the burdens that interracial marriage brings. For further reading on genetics try Dr. David Reich’s (geneticist at the Harvard School of Medicine) book entitled “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past”. I have heard HWA lauded from the pulpit in Big Sandy for being racially pure like Noah. HWA was from 1% to 3% Neanderthal based on studies of Western Europeans. The momentum behind this is so great that those who deny it hold a highly exceptional and idiosyncratic view and must shoulder the burden of proof that it is not so. If HWA has enough living descendants and other relatives, a genetic test that measures Neanderthal ancestry might be used to deduce this with the help of a genetic consultant.

Ways Being a Prophet Don't Count

It is with some amusement that we are forced to observe Bob Thiel's absolute craving to be considered a Biblical Prophet.  Amusing stuff to most of us but a dead serious need on Bob's part evidently.

Recently in his article: 

https://www.cogwriter.com/news/prophecy/lcg-is-correct-that-true-prophets-are-rare-and-that-it-has-none-unless-those-associated-with-it-change-they-will-not-know-when-the-great-tribulation-will-start-until-it-is-basically-too-late/

Bob states:  

"But it should be noted that starting with a telephone call from its late top leader on October 3, 2008, LCG’s highest leadership had repeatedly stated that God may consider Bob Thiel to be a prophet (see How To Determine If Someone is a True Prophet of God).

Consider also:

• On August 26, 2012, LCG Evangelist Dr. D. Winnail told Bob Thiel, “We all think that you might be a prophet.” In order to determine who “We all” was, on September 7, 2012, I asked if this was a reference to all three of the LCG Charlotte-based evangelists and Dr. Winnail concurred.
• On January 7, 2013, Dr. Douglas Winnail sent me an email, which included the statement, “we made comments to you that “you may be a prophet.””

But since LCG had integrity problems, I left on December 28, 2018 (see Why Bob Thiel Left the Living Church of God).

Recall that Dexter Wakefield wrote, ““Prophets” in the sense of Elijah are rare.”

As far as rarity goes, I would ask, “How many people were told by an actual top evangelist in the Church of God that God may consider him to be a prophet?  And on multiple occasions?” In the 20th and 21st centuries, there is only one who comes to mind (I find this hilarious. I wonder who Bob has in mind?)   (details are in the article How To Determine If Someone is a True Prophet of God). 

So, while prophets are “rare,” and being told one is a prophet by an ordained evangelist is also rare, rarity does not mean that there are none." 

Now personally, and I could be wrong, I find this silly, but I believe Bob has missed the point completely that LCG was making to him. I see more an obnoxious member, making every effort impress for whatever personal reasons or convictions, who he considers to be "reputed pillars" in LCG with his prophetic leanings.  Over time, they tolerate but begin to tire of his presence and need to be taken seriously.  Somewhere along the line, and out of frustration, Dr Winnail says "We all think you might be a prophet."  This is not to say you are one as noted in the second email that stated "we made comments to you that "you MAY be a prophet." I suspect this email was intended as more like correction than confirmation.  That sounds more like Dr. W, growing tired of Bob's need to be recognized, trying to settle him down and telling him in effect "We ONLY made comments to you that you MAY be a prophet, not that we think you are one."  etc.

Bob took BOTH comments as a positive affirmation by LCG of his Prophetic abilities and credential, but I don't believe they were said in the spirit of that at all.  More of an eyeroll or face palm than an admission of reality. 

I have used the same language in the past with members who were obsessed with a particular idea about themselves, how the church needs to do or not do something or some role they believe they have found for themselves that no one seems to recognize. These kinds of members were annoying as hell and could easily mess up a generally peaceful congregation.  They were never satisfied I was doing enough or taking them as seriously as I should and  I grew tired of the topic and simple said something to the effect of "perhaps you are right," not to agree but to shut them up and make them feel better.  (And me too).  If I adopted every hairbrained idea members thought I MUST preach, my church would have resembled Barnes and Bailey Circus complete with clowns and dancing bears. 

Bob seems to have taken both statements as affirmations that everyone, or at least the important people believed he was.  I think he is kidding himself just as he did when hearing in a rather mundane anointing for illness that God was being asked to give Bob a "double portion of his spirit."  Those were evidently words or near ordination and affirmation that Bob was indeed special.  (I've been double blessed with the spirit requested a few times along the way by my peers when actually ordained, but I didn't even get the first portion right I'm pretty sure :)

Predicting that brain injuries happen playing football or that future storms will get worse and worse as proof he knows the future simply don't count.  Reading trends in this or that topic on the Internet doesn't count as prophecy either. 

So some of you might enjoy Bob's article begging once again to be recognized as a Prophet and why. I don't personally believe in prophecy for many reasons, the least of which is that, plainly stated, no one knows the future.  If it was all planned out and all we had to do was discover it, we'd simply be actors in something else's show and that does not bode well for free will and such.  Add to that, many Biblical prophecies fail miserably and as mentioned below, stories are back written with known history in mind to appear to be the fulfillment of it.  Jesus Birth Narratives were written in that style as was the death of Jesus. All cobbled from Old Testament scriptures that already existed.  All written, and contradicting each other, because the authors knew neither the details of Jesus birth or the real circumstances of his death.  The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of anything but that's another topic. 

Anyway, here is a list of ways that don't count towards points in whether one is a prophet or not and presented just for the fun of it. :)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-theists-guide-to-converting-atheists/

• Verified, specific prophecies that couldn’t have been contrived.
  If the Bible, for example, said, “On the first day of the first month in the year two thousand and ten, the pillars of the earth will shake and a great part of the New World will be lost to the sea,” and then January 1, 2010 comes and a tremendous earthquake sends California to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, I would become a believer.
•  No points are awarded under any of the following conditions:

• If the prophecy is vague, unclear or garbled (like Nostradamus’ ramblings, for example). It must be detailed, specific and unambiguous in its prediction and wording.
• If the prophecy is trivial. Anyone could predict that it will be cold next winter, or that this drought/plague/flood will eventually subside. The prophecy must predict something surprising, unlikely or unique.
• If the prophecy is obviously contrived for other reasons. No official seer or court astrologer ever predicted that the king he worked for would be a brutal, evil tyrant who would ruin the country.
• If the prophecy is self-fulfilling; i.e., if the mere fact of the prophecy’s existence could cause people to make it come true. The Jewish people returned to their homeland in Israel just as the Bible said they would, but this isn’t a genuine prediction – they did it because the Bible said they would. The predicted event can’t be one that people could stage.
• If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the writing of the prophecy itself can’t be shown to have preceded the event.
• If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the happening of that event can’t be verified by independent evidence. For example, Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies, but the authors of the New Testament obviously had access to those prophecies also; what would have prevented them from writing their story to conform to them? The extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus is so scanty that it is impossible to disprove such a proposal.
• And finally, if the prophecy is the lone success among a thousand failures. Anyone can throw prophecies against the wall until one sticks. The book or other source from which it comes must have at least a decently good record on other predictions. 
• 
  

These conditions, I think, are eminently reasonable, and are only what would be expected of a true prophet with a genuine gift."

But personally, one's belief that they are gifted in prophecy is the more obvious slippery slope of human ego at play and the need to be special above their fellows.