How do you place your trust in men who seem to never do what is right?
by
Adrian
Trust: noun
1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
2. confident expectation of something; hope.
3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust.
4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust.
5. the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted.
Good question. How do you place your trust in men who seem to never do what is right? Men who serve the interest of themselves first and the interests of the member last?
Adrian from Australia wrote with these questions in mind.
-
- In a my 3rd church service members were instructed to burn booklets published by the wcoa. 1975(72?) in prophesy was one of these. What type organization burns records of their teachings to cover their traces?
- The organization claimed to be inspired and led by an infallible God, but had policies on makeup and birthdays that constantly changed from one policy that was the opposite of the other. A contradiction indeed.
- The religion claimed the just shall live by faith, but then contradictorily claimed to be able to prove there is a god.
- The religion published books like the proof of the bible that was later withdrawn because of errors.
- The church claimed that everything was inspired by the ministers who promoted members to leadership roles only to find out later that the member claimed a false baptism.
- GTA was disfellowshiped, but was given around $200000/yr in 1970’s money and tithe payers money paid for this.
- The church claimed to be the church of brotherly love. My wife often said to me that if that’s what the church people are like then she didn’t want to be a part of the 1000 year reign with them. I agreed. I wondered how come my own family who I was told to reject as worldly, were always kind to us despite us not giving birthday presents to them and having Christmas etc. Despite the bible saying that if you see your brother in need and you do nothing about it how can God’s love dwell in a person. My physical family always helped us materially, church members didn’t ever. Of course I forgot about all that free advice about how bad you were from members, but I don’t think that qualifies as helpful. The bible says by their fruit you shall know them. It bothered me that they claimed to have brotherly love.
- Wearing second hand clothes from opportunity shops because the church took our money, and then being told by the ministry you are not blessed because you don’t have the material possession that they have.
- Being told to pay third tithe despite making yourself the key candidate for financial assistance.
- Reading scriptures in Galatians, Colossians for example, rereading Armstrong’s teachings of these verses and trying to convince myself what he said made sense. Never saying anything because you would be told you weren’t converted if you questioned anything.
- If you didn’t understand (blindly) everything then you weren’t converted.
- How members would rush to open the minister’s car door the rudely treat other members with disdain.
- That this is only the beginning of my list and there is so much more…that really bothers me.
Holy shit James, Herb as a used car salesman! It puts it all together, making it clear as to what he really was. A huckster.
Great picture!
Here’s one for the list:
How about the pastor telling you to humble yourself at footwashing and wash the person you are least comfortable with, knowing full well the ministers’ footwashing partner was hand picked and had hot water and linen towels…..
Indeed, the choice of the picture was inspired.
They lie to you and then they take your money.
Trust is so overrated.
I quickly found out I could not trust the ministry when I once counseled with Robin Webber about something and as soon as I left he stood in the hallway making fun of my situation with John Kennedy. The entire Security office and Telcom personnel heard what they said. I was not the first one they made fun of. From discussions with those who used to work in the Church Offices this was routine. There was no confidentiality whatsoever.
What was that about not putting your trust in man?
Psa 146:3 “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”
The world is full of religious con-men, including the one who wrote that psalm. If you have kept up with the latest argument between Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier over the existence of Jesus, you can easily see how words of others can be twisted even unintentionally. However, something caught my interest in the exchange.
Ehrman is fond of saying that surely James would know if his own brother, Jesus, existed or not (Gal. 1:19). Well, duh, of course. But James, who supposedly witnessed the resurrected Jesus would know if his brother was resurrected or not too. So, by Bart’s own reasoning, he has proved the resurrection to be just as historically real as Jesus being James’ brother. Maybe that just went over Bart’s head, I don’t know. And, maybe that means that a biblical scholar is so biased in favor of the actual existence of Jesus that he can’t even contemplate the idea that religious con-men existed before Paul’s Jesus did.
Anyway, who appointed these men (such as Paul) as God’s “apostles”? God? C’mon, we know that didn’t happen. They are men, just flesh and blood and bones, they put their pants on one leg at a time just like you do, nothing special about them at all. All gods have one thing in common – men. All gods are revealed to you by men. All gods speak through men and no gods speak directly to you.
But, like Bart Ehrman’s biased conclusion that “Jesus most certainly did exist” before he even attempted to make a case for it, most people conclude that their god must have men to ‘mediate’ between them and their god. It’s even the same way with contacting the dead – you must hire a ‘medium’ to put you in indirect contact with a dead loved one. You leave happy and they deposit another sum of money in the bank.
Why would you think, conclude, that there are men (or women) soooo much better than you are that your god chose them over you as his “go between” mediator. But hey, it’s your tithes…throw ’em away if you want to…
I think we can all agree that the opposite of trust is mistrust. I feel the same factors pruduce both. When young, shiny and new we all tend to be more trusting, as we don’t have any other reference to go by than what a expert or preceived authority is conveying.
We learned of religion most likely from parents and family in 60’s -70’s when spirituality and religion had spiked, but has since fallen by 38%
We learned all was indeed not well in this theoretical paradise, that took your money, wanted to know all about you at the deepest levels, all for the lord long before there was any homeland security, that wants to do the very same thing today.
We learned to mistrust, and doubt, and this is the dreaded antidote for all of these cults when put to the rational test.
Yes, a good dose of skepticism and reason is a good remedy for the malady of belief without proof and evidence.
“Why would you think, conclude, that there are men (or women) soooo much better than you are that your god chose them over you as his “go between” mediator. But hey, it’s your tithes…throw ‘em away if you want to…”
Yes indeed. Why did we and why do the current flock of sheeple continue on ignoring the false prophecies of their gods mediator?
Stupidity, false hope, feeling special, holier than thou, ignorance, magic thinking, etc. The list is large, the results are lower, and always the same. Failure!
Why did we? Because we wanted it to be and we wanted it to be because we wanted hope and we wanted hope because we feared death and we feared death because we were not mature enough in mind to handle a fact of life that we detest.
As humans, we prefer to believe anything that says we get to stay alive, no matter how ridiculous the belief. It’s a built-in survival tool that keeps us from just giving up when hanging by our fingertips over a cliff. Hope of rescue, no matter how small, will keep one hanging on a little bit longer.
Well said Corky, bang on!
Corky continues to ignore the simplest argument of Matthew 24:23. A friend just quoted John 10:1-14.Let’s assume that it’s true, especially verse 14:
“I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine”.
Let’s assume for grins a nd giggles that it;s true, that Jesus is the good shpeherd. But what about the last part: “and am known of mine”?
How are you gonna know? Define a process by which it can be known at all. Law? The natural mind is enmity against God, and cannot be subject to God. God doesn’t think like we do(Isaiah 55:8).
There simply exists no defineable way to both know and demonstrate such a thing. Only two possibilities exist, assuming it is true:
1God knows and calls his wn by hos own choice(Romans 8:29-30, John 6:44
2. Theree is no Gd to know or call, and therefore we have no need to follow any human religion.
However, I must point out that both conclusions would lead to the same overall conclusion, that there is no need t follow any human religion, which is just what we find in Matthew 24:23.
AND, because of Romans 8:7, all human attempts to organize and serve God will result in splintering and “scattering” which means we would unknowingly serve the “wolf” by our own works.
In short, we arrive at one inevitable conclusin: we serve God by not serving or following any man, and we serve our own freedom by the same method if there is no God. Therefore, the biblical statements on ths account are true, since they correspond with observable fact.
So, whether there is a Jesus or not, we serve truth and freedom by not following any man or religion, as Jesus pointed ut in Matthew 24:23
The idea that the natural mind is at enmity with God is an assumption. Why would I want to assume that? I would have to first assume there was a God and then assume that the one who wrote that bullshit knew what he was talking about. Why would I do that?
I don’t assume anything that the writers of the bible say is true but consider it bullshit until someone proves otherwise. Prove that the natural mind is enmity against God – go ahead – but first, prove there is a god. Then prove that this particular god is the real god and then prove that this real god doesn’t think like we do – without quoting men.
Some more things that bother me
• Hwa as far as I can remember never apologised or ever admitted he was wrong on anything despite clear evidence that he was.
• Hwa was made a ” honorary doctor” even though he seemed to detest anything to do with education. This doctorate was given by President Marcos who was in the Guinness book of record at one stage as the world’s greatest thief.
• Hwa used the pt or gn (or both) magazines to say that it was ok and imply it was a good idea that older men should marry much younger women some 3-6 months before announcing his marriage to a women much younger than himself.
• That hwa always said we were in the gun lap to generate a greater income. He was wrong!
• Members always let you know that they prayed, fasted, gave alms etc all contrary to Jesus’s teaching on each of these.
• When GTa came to Australia he made a point of saying he was going to get rid of all the homosexuals at headquarters, I wondered why they if they existed had they been appointed to the positions they were in the first place. Besides if they had repented what was the problem anyway?
• Home births on the kitchen table being promoted as a good thing.
• The policy on healing. Members were not to use doctors despite modern medicine and procedures capable of a complete cure. The bible says that you shall not put God to the test. God doesn’t do miracles for us when we can reasonably do for ourselves. It was terrible that even children died because their parents inflicted the crazy healing teaching of the wcoa upon them.
• Told in a sermonette that to save more and make a greater contribution financially that stinging nettles should be collected and boiled up for soup.
• The minister stopping the sermon and telling the local elder to give his young child a belting.
• “Special” music that was appalling.
• The food we provided for “feast days” always ended up on the ministers table and we were left with leftovers.
• Vomiting from eating leftovers.
• Deciding to go and buy a meal instead of eating this inferior food, and then being told not to do so because we should be fellowshipping with the “brethren”. I suspect the minister may not have gotten the meal he wanted.
• Told how to spend your second tithe despite supposedly being able to spend it on your heart’s desire, and then being told to hand the “excess” second tithe in.
• Etc etc etc etc etc etc…………..
My own mother died because of “the policy on healing” – needlessly, I might add, because her illness was completely curable.
However, none of these things should “bother” you. After all, It was/is a religious cult and you are free of it if you choose to be. It reminds me of Becky Rush’s Gittin Unscrewed HERE
It bothered me that the ministers always got first pick for Feast accommodations a week before the rest of us.
It bothered me that the ministers always sat in one section at the Feast whether they had a job that day or not.
It bothered me that the ministers never seemed to minister but needed to be ministered to.
It bothered me that the ministers would make secret reports and send them to headquarters for nefarious purposes later.
It bothered me that the ministers personally especially took it upon themselves to treat me with contempt and make me a laughingstock of the congregation.
It bothered me that I was treated as the lowliest of the low and had to take it with a “good attitude”.
It bothered me that I was so very poor, starving half to death on less than minimum income as a messenger (walking all day long and burning up a lot of energy and sometimes having to fast because there simply wasn’t enough money for food), but I had to send 10% of my gross income to headquarters, save 10% and blow it at the Feast and was pressed into service to help people move on the weekends.
It bothered me that in all the years of contributions and service to the WCG, I can’t really think of a time that it really provided anything to me of lasting worth at all (except perhaps that I understand narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths and nutjobs far more clearly that I would otherwise).
It bothered me that I wasted my time with people with whom I had nothing in common to dumb myself down so I could communicate with them because they were stupid, even as they treated me as being mentally deficient.
It bothers me that Herbert Armstrong squandered the money I sent in (I could have just about paid for the cabinet full of the crystal goblets he had over a lifetime of giving), but yet there is absolutely nothing left. Nothing. It’s all gone.
It bothers me that the ministers left my brother to die… alone.
It bothers me that the ministers promoted alcoholism.
It bothers me that the ministers had answers for everything, but never provided any real solutions.
It bothers me that Herbert Armstrong is a proven false prophet, but that people still worship him as giving them “the truth”, even though his teachings simply don’t work.
It bothers me that Herbert Armstrong was even able to get through the door to meet world leaders when he was so full of it (and not to mention, himself).
It bothers me that Herbert Armstrong would have such poor judgment as to pick a full fledged psychopath to succeed him, when he could have picked a mere sociopath.
Not a way to build a life time of trust.
What bothers me about hwa meeting world leaders was how much did he (church members actually) pay for the meetings to take place? When he visited Australia in the late 70’s (I think) he met with the premier of Queensland. The Premier was later investigated for corruption and he was found to have a $100000 donation not accounted for. He claimed that someone just walked into office an gave it to him in a brown paper bag. I often wondered did the wcoa have anything to do with this?
How were you ridiculed?
Corky, good one, and easily answered.
“The idea that the natural mind is at enmity with God is an assumption.”
Let’s agree that it is an assumption. If so, then either it can be proven or not proven, but in order to offer proof in either case, we proceed to your next conclusion:
“Why would I want to assume that? I would have to first assume there was a God and then assume that the one who wrote that bullshit knew what he was talking about. Why would I do that?”
No reason at all, since there is n proof whatever of a God, which leaves us with exactly the same conclusion in either case: there is no God, which means there is no use in follwing any person who says there is a God, or “here is God”. The logic is the same in either case, and both poijt to the same conclusion, consistent with observable reality, which means that one or the other may be true, BUT NOT BOTH. However, since we cannot prove one or the other, it becomes undecideable in terms of logic or truth.
In either case, decideale or not, the same conclusion must be held, that there is no reason to believe any person who says there IS a God, or that there is NOT a God. You miss the most important aspect: God’s existence or non-existence MUST be an assumption, so the only possibly correct choice is to assume that NO ONE knows the answer, which makes NO ONE an authority. Therefore, if there IS a God, then obviously the human mind is enmity against it(you would have to, as you point out, prove there is a God in the first place, and then you could shw some frm of “computability”).
Since the existence of God is at best an assumption in either case, Romans 8:7 is true in terms of compatiility with reality, just as the assumptin there is NO God is true in terms of compatibility with reality. This again leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that Matthew 24:23 is correct, whether there was a Jesus or not. Truth is truth, and is consistent with all truth.
“I don’t assume anything that the writers of the bible say is true but consider it bullshit until someone proves otherwise.”
Since there is obviously no way to prove there is or is not a God, the ONLY measurement f truth is whether or nt a statement is consistwent with reality. The “proof”, therefore, of Romans 8:7 is that IF the natural mind IS enmity against a God that exists, there are two basic conclusions:
1.No one can claim authority as God;s representative, since there is no such possible proof
2. A ny attempt to make such a claim must ultimately result in exactly the kind of near infinite splintering of ideas about God just as we see today. Therfore, IF there is a God, then OBVIOUSLY there is no way that the human mind can demonstrate such a God, and the midn would be enmity against God.
This is a perfectly valid syllogism:
All natural minds are enmity against God
I have a natural mind
My mind is enmity against God
The only “proof” of such a syllogism is that there is a God, and then to see the results as validated by reality HOWEVER, the same results may be obtained by saying that there is no God of any kind.
Therefore, the statement attributed to jesus in Matthew 24:23,IN EITHER CASE, must be correct. One can “believe on Jesus” in a truthful manner ONLY if one realizes there is no need to follow a ny person who claims to follow Jesus. The same conclusion, however, would result if one believed in no God at all. The statement, therefre, is true. YOU prove otherwise, Corky.
“Prove that the natural mind is enmity against God – go ahead – but first, prove there is a god. Then prove that this particular god is the real god and then prove that this real god doesn’t think like we do – without quoting men.”
The second part is easy. The Church -Turing thesis, which says that the brain is subject to the laws of physics, so that if we can capture the laws f physics, then we can model those same laws mathematically in the human brain. HOWEVER, if that is true, then the human brain is no more than a computer, and IF there is a God who ‘thinks” as we d, then ‘his” thoughts are subject to the same laws, so that “God” is both computable, and can be programmed into a computer. If Gd;s exist4ence could be proven, and if God thinks as we do, THEN Gd in totality can bve defined, translated into algorithms, and programmed into a computer, eaning there is no need for God.
BIG PROBLEM: There is no way of knowing if this can ever be done, due to Godel’s incompleteness theorem. In any consistent aximatic formalization suitable for number theory, there exists an infinity of und ecideable propositions. This means that there is no way that we can EVER put all truth in one pacakge, so something such as the existen of God as totality of truth is neither provable nor unprovable.
Since Matthew 24;23 is co nsistwent with Godel’s theorem, and since we cannot prove all truth in one package, there is no reason to follow any person’s prrewscriptions about God.
Now for the final blowout:
“Then prove that this particular god is the real god”
Any statement about God that is consistent with reality demonstrates “he” is “real” to every measurement known to the human brain. I’m not talking about whether “he” exists, but strictly about your last statement, abve. If there exist god/gods, then all that is necesary is to prove that one or more actually fit with truth.
I’vre already shown by your own cnclusions, that certain biblical statements result in facts consistent with reality , so, to al lintents and purposes until proven otherwise, THAT God is “real”, more so than other Gods. To the extent “he” does nt conform to reality, “he” is NOT real.
Whether you believe there is/is not a god, therefore, the resulting conclusions must be the same. The proof is on you now Corky, to prove otherwise.
They say that a conclusion is what you reach when you get tired of thinking and I now see why they say that. I don’t have to prove conclusions that I have not reached. I have not concluded that there is no god, only that I don’t believe there is. That’s not a conclusion nor a belief but the lack thereof.
Therefore, I cannot conclude that the natural mind is enmity against a god who, in all probability, does not exist.
If, by some weird reasoning, I should conclude that an improbable god does exist – I still could not conclude that the natural mind is enmity against it, because, the majority of natural minds in this world are all for god(s)and desire to obey it and are not at enmity against it.
Biblegod IS human. He is jealous, he gets angry, he feels sorrow, he is vengeful, desires worship, repents, defers judgment, breaks promises and since he is ignorant of science – he is a bronze age human.
“I have not concluded that there is no god, only that I don’t believe there is. That’s not a conclusion nor a belief but the lack thereof.”
Good, and tha’s as far as our thinking can take us.
“Therefore, I cannot conclude that the natural mind is enmity against a god who, in all probability, does not exist.”
Fine. In all probability, God does nt exist. But since you leave the door open, assume that God does exist. In order to prove such an idea, one must conclude that God is consistent with reality in some form. Afer all, if one is to prove God, one must conclude that God is consistent with what is provable in reality. Whatever is true in terms of the physical universe must be true in terms of God, or you have nothing with which you can work, with “work” being the operative word.
Since we must conclude Occam’s razor in ur conclusions, any discovery of physical truth must be consistent with God, or there is no use in making an assumption of God inconsistent with physical reality. it is imperative, therefore, to conclude that God must be consistent wih what we can prove in terms of reality.
“If, by some weird reasoning, I should conclude that an improbable god does exist – I still could not conclude that the natural mind is enmity against it, because, the majority of natural minds in this world are all for god(s)and desire to obey it and are not at enmity against it.”
if you conclude that an improbable god does exist, what would yu offer as prof? The improbability of the human mind? If so, then yur “proof” would demnstrate tha humans must believe in a god who is imprbable, which is to say there is no god at all, or if there exists a god who is improbable, the number of gods wh can be believed would approach infinity, since improbability would be the standard by which they believe in god.
It would appear, therefore, that you choose to believe in a god who is improbable and not a god wh is consistent with truth which means you have proven nothing at all. You have merely chosen to believe in something that matches your own preferences and prejudices. Since there are millions of minds tha desire to believe in god, but who cannot prove the existence of suchg a god, or a complete, consisent framework of god, you merely demonstrate that there is no god, or that the naural mind cannot be subject to god. If the naturak mind CAN be subject to God, then that same prcess can be translated t language, which can be translated to algorithms, which means any computer can p[rogram god into itself without contradiction, bu that is precisely the problem in defining god, an infinity of contradictions.
“Biblegod IS human. He is jealous, he gets angry, he feels sorrow, he is vengeful, desires worship, repents, defers judgment, breaks promises and since he is ignorant of science – he is a bronze age human.”
I can take the same conceps of god in the Old testament and demonstrate how such concepts are fully consistent with emergent epigenetics. As Paul points out, he prmise made by god which is of utmst importance deals with the promise made t Abraham, which does NOT concern the nation of Israel. This is easily shwn by examination of Paul’s teachings, which disprove HWAs concepts.
The main point is, it doesn’t really matter what you or I believe, since there is no way we can show any closer connection to god than anyone else, or even that god exists.(Romans 9:16-22)