Is “Armstrongism” The Problem?

44 Replies to “Is “Armstrongism” The Problem?”

1. Welcome Gun Lap to the Painful Truth Blog!

   With your new website online now, we can be assured that the Armstrong ministers will once again be found weeping and gnashing their teeth as the sheep awaken from their slumber and income dwindles continually downward.

   Each rung on the ladder of self-isolationism is cause for crisis in these groups. Each crisis supplies an excuse for the Armstrongites to create widespread hysteria and the establishment of totalitarianism. That is the standard process by which the most wretched reduce the sheeple to acute penury. Armstrongism IS the low-hanging fruit on the rotting tree of Machiavellianism.

   Unlike the Churches of God who encourage and exacerbate problems rather than help people to overcome them, we reach out in a spirit of truth and with a mind focused on justice! Fortunately, as it stands, the groundswell of quiet opposition to Armstrongism is getting less quiet and more organized.

   Welcome once again Gun Lap!

   Reply

2. Many of the scriptures offered merely point out that we are free of the “world”. They culminate in Matthew 24:23, and Romans 8:7. Since we cannot truly organize in God;s name, there is no point in trying, so we can simply be free from all such nonsense.
   For example:”Did Jesus tolerate division? “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matt 12:30).”

   Contrast this with Matthew 10:34-38, in which he declared it was his purpose to create division. How can both be true? Easy, since there is no wayt to organizxe in God’s name, and since the natural min d is enmity against God, and since there is no need to follow any person who says “here is Christ, or there”, we ca n be of onbe accord by agreeing that we are free of all such nonsense.

   Again:
   “God only worked with one group of people (one nation) in the Old Testament: “And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.” (Exodus 6:7).”

   God may or may not have done that, but the example is one of deliverance from human power and human kingdoms. No need to organize and in fact you cannot.
   “The same theme is echoed in the NT: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (I Pet 2:9).”

   The simple question here is, “What light?” If you try and define this specia light, you must develop human definition s which by nature are limited, and the minute you do, the result will be exactly what we see today; over 38 ,000 versions of christianity. So, what light? Freedom, pure and simple. freedom from men, freedom from human governments,. the right to use your own mind, to think for yourself.

   And this argument:

   “Jesus told the New Testament church to keep every detail of the law: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass [did heaven and earth pass away yet?], one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matt 5:17-18). ”

   Notice also that Jesus authorized settlement of that law “out of court(Matthew 5:25)” anbd extended that concept in Matthew 18:15-18, challenging the existent state powers, declaring that only two or more are necessary for any settlement.
   “Keep the law in order to be justified: “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rom 2:13). ”

   And yet, in that very same chapter, Paul condemend those who would condemn others by the law.(Romans 2:1). What is the law? James 1:22. Whether you keep the law or not, you will still die.
   “Faith does not void the law: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Rom 3:31).”

   Obviously, since there is no freedom to do bad or wrong simply by declaring faith. It was, as Paul said, a “mirror”, or more accurately, a reflective principle by which we may see the flaws in our actions.
   “Breaking the law is not honored: “And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.” (2 Tim 2:5).”

   Why shouldn’t he strive lawfully? James poi nts out that such striving forces us to obey the law in all aspects, rather than focusing on love of neighbors.
   “The law is written in the heart of a true Christian: “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them…” (Heb 10:16).”

   So? We see from Paul’s writings in Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 8:7, Romans 8:28-30, and 9:16-22 that there are no works we can do that will ensure salvation. The selection of the article is an arbitrary selection, designed to produce wrong conclusions. ALL christianity is crap, because there is no way we can arrive at any relationwhip with God that is provably any closer than any other person’s ideas.Therefore, Matthew 24:23.
   “We do well to keep the law: “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well.” (James 2:8).”

   And there it is, you see, the fulfillment of the law: love your neighbor as yourself.

   Now, let’s look at all these arguments logically. IF we can define the proper way to observe the law, which we can’t(Romans 8:7), then that process can be translated to language, then algorithms, then programmed into computers, which means that everything can be reduced to mechancial processes. This means, further, that there is no need for beauty, a search for truth, or even life itself, since everything can be reduced to logic. As we know from Godel’s incompleteness theorem, it is simply impossible to arrive at such definitions, so there is no use in trying. Where does that leave us? Love your neighbor as yourself, end of story.

   Reply

3. The assessment seems to be more than a bit off and this becomes much more clear if we look at the social dynamics.

   It is true that religions have divisions across the board: Catholics, the various Protestant groups, such as Lutherans and Baptists, Islam, the various flavors of Oriental style religions (Buddhism, Taoism, etc), Mormans — and it’s not clear if this applies to Scientology as well — Judahism and on and on, yet, it would be difficult to find a religion so splintered in such a short period of time after the Originator’s death. Perhaps there are a few, but the count ranges from 700 to over 1,200+, many of which seem to have nothing more than different leaders with exactly the same eschatology, or if there are differences, so slight that the naive would be hard pressed to discern the determination factors as to why a group is splintered. The best example of this is UCG vs CoGWA. And they split because…. ?

   The Bible is not the answer.

   Actually, it is, but not in the way presented in the article above.

   “From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?”

   And of course we have the description of the works of the flesh, not to be outdone by II Timothy 3 and all those proud boasters from which we should turn away.

   Armstrongism is a religion not founded on the Bible at all. It is a religion devoid of Jesus Christ founded on anger generating a fabricated reality. No protests, please: Occam’s Razor explains the splits quite handily. The anger is the simplest explanation.

   The fabricated reality part rests squarely on British Israelism and the false prophecies based upon it as “the Key to all Prophecy” which unlocks nothing to a door doesn’t exist.

   It all goes back to Herbert Armstrong’s rebellion with the anger to fulfill his lusts and we sort of degenerate from there.

   Moreover, his alleged credentials are a fraud and so are the credentials of every last sychophant seizing the day to put up their own shingle to make a profit and gain aggrandizement from prestressed people in a totally delusional venue who are attempting to do something impossible: To be perfect in a dysfunctional environment. As “Take Back Your Life” points out, these cults are a set up for failure so that members are trapped in the guilt of always falling short of the impossible expecations of them because they are attempting to achieve something totally unnatural. No one can overachieve like that for very long without something giving out (generally finances fall first). You can’t succeed without cheating and cutting corners, but when you cheat and cut corners you can’t succeed.

   As with Scientology, the Bible really wasn’t necessary to build Armstrongism — it was just a convenient platform from which to launch. A lot of dead-end science got launched in the same manner.

   What should be of greatest concern is the Proverb not to go with an angry man, lest you learn his ways. This has more meat and meaning than most people would like to believe. It is mental noise. I leads to chaos. It all but eliminates peace. It has residual effects, some of which can be observed in Armstrongists turned atheists, claiming to have logic, but unable to see through the haze of anger and arrogance — a permanent long term chronic condition which kills if untreated (and many suppose that they “got over it” and don’t realize their continued level of engagement).

   Peace, peace and there is no peace certainly extends from the entry of Armstrongism to years beyond the exit as people look for the answers of meaning — “why?” — instead of looking at how it all started in their lives.

   It’s just like any other con game and when you know the trick behind it, they all pretty much look alike.

   Reply

4. “The Bible is not the answer.

   Actually, it is, but not in the way presented in the article above.”

   You got it. Look at the “kingdom of God” as a decision process, a system of algorithms by which we can get from “here’ to “there”, and you discover that it really can’t be done. That is the essence of Romans 9:16-22.
   Isaiah 55:8 is consistent with Romans 8:7, “MY thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways…”

   Put simply, you can’t get there from here. Ephesians 2:8-10.

   All human attmepts, therefore, will fail, leaving us with Matthew 24:23, or Matthew 13:11, or Romans 11:7, or 11:32,or 1 Corinthians 1:25-28

   Reply

5. “…the Bible really wasn’t necessary to build Armstrongism — it was just a convenient platform from which to launch…”

   How many convenient platforms are there? What are some others? Judaism? Buddhism? Islam? How successful would Armstrong have been if he tried to launch a new US-based religion on one of those other platforms? Probably not very successful. The Bible was not just another platform, it was the best platform. Without it, “Armstrongism” would have been totally different from what it is–a Bible based high-demand religion. Without the Bible he would not have gotten very far. He needed something with some perceived credibility to build it on, something that would work in this part of the world. There was no better platform. The Bible was his manual.

   “Armstrongism is a religion not founded on the Bible at all.”

   Considering how often he quoted the Bible, and that his interpretations were often as good or better than many others that are out there (or at least good enough to convince a lot of us for a lot of years), I would have to differ.

   “… attempting to do something impossible: To be perfect in a dysfunctional environment.”

   Very well put!

   Reply

6. Convenient platforms?

   “When Prophecy Fails” shows that UFOs and Extraterrestrials are and were a very strong platform, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s.

   The same can be said for the 1970s MLM.

   Herbert Armstrong did not base his religion on the Bible — he just used words and phrases from the Bible. The New Testament in particular seemed to be about Jesus Christ, and yet, though he used the name of Jesus a lot (“In Jesus’ Name”), it was at best merely more what would be considered blasphemy. Also, I have never found “United States” or “British Commonwealth” mentioned in Scripture — but he claimed they were.

   Based on the Bible?

   Anyone who thinks that might want to reconsider.

   The anger he had and the anger of the members should not be ignored, for without the anger, there really isn’t the kind of ACoGs we actually see today.

   Or has everyone forgotten the yelling?

   It’s rather difficult to perceive when wrapped in something like anger: After awhile it’s like wearing old leather — you don’t even notice you’re wearing it.

   Reply

7. From an individual perspective, I have to say that as a teen-ager I had exhausted the usual religious methods of trying to find an answer. But then for HWA to come along and appeal to reason and logic, and then tell me that I could prove what is truth? That was astounding! I had sensed it all my life, but was told it cannot be done, that logic and reason had no place in faith. Suddenly I felt empowered!

   I already told of my disillusionment while at Ambassador College in 69-70 as an employee, but I never lost the conviction that logic and reason CAN provide the answers if we look. In fact, the bible does tell us the truth, but as Douglas says, not in the way we’ve been conditioned to look for it.

   Reply

8. There are two other factors about Armstrongism — one of which is seemingly never discussed: The religion is totally daft and Herbert Armstrong was attuned to the rich (we’ll get to that one).

   The religion of Herbert Armstrong may seem logical and reasonable, tuned to have appeal to those who have inherited a high degree of analytical reasoning (the ability to align data into structures — generally linear structures like org charts and process charts — but in the end it’s crazy, filled with delusion. The problem is that Herbert Armstrong could only reason in two dimensions and the Universe exists in 4 and it’s not linear. There can never be anything but a disconnect between the apparently logical fabricated reality and the truly surreal real world. Herbert Armstrong may have seemed logical but he was neither scientific nor did he have the rigorous discipline to have any shred of integrity.

   That said, there was yet another very important factor in how Armstrong developed and that is he was always fascinated by the very rich, and, by extension, the powerful and influencial. From early on in his career, he “rubbed elbows” with the CEOs, Presidents, Vice Presidents and Directors of financially robust Corporations. He not just learned to communicate with them, he did as much as he could to become like them.

   Now let’s step back a moment. I hope you will honor my experience.

   I come from what some would consider the upper edge of the lower class: A rural environment where my dad worked as the County Road Crew Foreman. Yet, in my own career in both government and the private sector, I have met with and worked directly with some of the more, shall we say, higher echelon. For example, at Weyerhaeuser, the son of the Exxon Controller worked directly for me. I’ve made presentations to people like the President and Chancellor of places like Pacific Lutheran University. I’ve met and talked with CEOs, Presidents, Chairmen of the Board, Directors and Managers. I cared for none of them. Socializing at dinner with your Director and Manager Colleagues, overlooking the city at night with a spectacular view and having cocktails and small talk after dinner was most uncomfortable. I hated it. At the Corporate Headquarters, I headed down to an alcove with my sack lunch to have a pleasant time with the electricians. They were the most sensible people in the whole place. And when it came to it later, when everyone was told it would take a minimum of six weeks for changing the electrical in the computer room, the guys got it done for me in two days.

   Anyway, Herbert Armstrong’s whole life was dedicated to being rich and important. He wanted to be someone. The only people who could satisfy his lust were the rich and powerful of the world, including Presidents and Prime Ministers of nations. Note what he said in his autobiography about the leaders of the CoG7: They didn’t strike him as being powerful — he disdained them and felt contempt for them because they weren’t his kind of people.

   With this sort of arrogance, there came an entire environment of a class society in the WCG which was dominated by Herbert Armstrong at the top, complaining that there weren’t any men of “quality” (the old money rich) applying to Ambassador College. The membership including the ministers were beneath him as he became a petty dictatorial little god (who proclaimed that he was going to become God as God is God, and would take us with him, if only we rolled over on our backs and bared the neck like some dirty cur). He did not consider any of us worth it. He and only he was The One. Whether he did it overtly or not, he treated us all with supreme contempt, directly abusing some and neglecting the others. He couldn’t be bothered with our problems. He was also delusional. He was so out of contact with AC employees, he thought they were being paid well, when the opposite was true (the rank and file, not the top evangelists — who were compensated beyond reasonable, but only because they were sycophant lackies).

   Herbert Armstrong was an absolute triumph of image over substance.

   It was a prison and Herbert Armstrong was the Prison Superintendent with Roderick Meredith as the Warden. It was the Princeton Prison Experiment in Pasadena.

   It should be noted that even if the doctrines seemed reasonable and logical, the internal society was not: It was far from reasonable and logical. Not unlike Beethovan composing pieces which could not be played to tempo while he was deaf, Herbert Armstrong, deaf to spirituality, composed a religion which could not be lived.

   Reply

9. Please note that Dennis Luker has a similar (but not as keenly developed) penchant for associating with the rich.

   Reply

10. From Gun Lap: “So, since we are helpless people who can’t think, we just need to forget all we were told and let the preacher on the corner tell us what to think. Then we’ll be OK.

    It’s hard to understand how anyone could fall for that line after spending years in a COG; yet some people do. Many of us witnessed the Worldwide Church of God morph into Grace Communion International under the “leadership” of the Tkaches, so we know it can happen.”

    A majr problem here is that the bible itself puts us in this frame of mind, as in Isaiah 55:8, Romans 8:7, 11:7, 11:32, Matthew 13:11, and even the “deception” scripture of Matthew 24, ALL of which HWA made us familiar.

    The psychology from that point was simple enough: point out the obvious differences in biblical doctrine and history, such as sabbath keeping, Easter, etc, and then point out that there MUST be one appointed to show us what we cannot determine, due to the scriptures to which I referred above. This, however, is not so different from the other religions who now tell us that, since HWA was wrong, and since we do not have the ability to determine the truth logically, we should “let the preacher on the corner tell us what to think”.

    However, the correct conclusion is just the opposite. Since we CAN’T prove these things for ourselves, and since religions of any type can offer no conclusive proof, the logical result is exactly what Jesus said in Matthew 24:23: don’t follow any of them. The “gaps” of logic and human understanding shown in the scriptures above, can be seen as deliberate or accidental, but in either case, they result in only one logically correct conclusion: there is no need to follow anyone.
    From Douglas:
    “Anyway, Herbert Armstrong’s whole life was dedicated to being rich and important. He wanted to be someone. The only people who could satisfy his lust were the rich and powerful of the world, including Presidents and Prime Ministers of nations. Note what he said in his autobiography about the leaders of the CoG7: They didn’t strike him as being powerful — he disdained them and felt contempt for them because they weren’t his kind of people.”
    Yes, he admitted as much in his autobiography in regard to emulating the rich. He lusted after it, by his own admission. Even assuming he started out with good intentions, he obviously fell to his lusts once he gained power. But the lesson he offers is that any perso can be “seduced’ by such things, and generally they are. That’s why Paul went to great lengths to show that the natural mind cannot be su bject to God, and why there simply is no way to show that “I” have any closer relation to God than “you”(Romans 9:16-22), and why Matthew 24:23 says there is no point in following any of them. Now, to “sacrifice” oneeself for such truth, the result is actually to “come ye out and be separate” in the sense that you are totally free of ALL religious organizations, institutions, and concepts, but you are equally free from government powers as well.

    Reply

11. Amen to that, Ralph. Government and religion is all about serving the needs of the elite (the so-called 1%). Long ago, someone somewhere figured out that if you found a way to enslave the people for your own selfish purposes, you could live a pretty good life. From that part of the dawn of humanity, the masses (us) have become livestock for the rich, well-connected and powerful.

    Part of this is covered in Priests, Politicians and Prostitutes. The priests supported the politicians early on to get on the gravy train by using God. Put the people in fear. Make them desire to be a part of a coming Kingdom they can never reach while living in squalor and poverty. Keep up the illusion that you’re doing OK and you’re part of “God’s Poor”. Not to worry: Some day YOU will be in the cat bird’s seat running the show, if only you show patience and know your place now. Be good little slaves and be the best you can be: That way you will have “spiritual” riches even if you aren’t the rich of the world.

    Make it logical. Make it reasonable. Teach the masses delusions with your own brand of fabricated reality. Make the fiction seem real. Give hope… lots of hope. Leave change. Get those poor rats salivating every time you ring the bell. Condition them. Make them sacrifice in the belief they are supporting an organization which will transform the world, while in actuality they are being transformed to be more poor, slaves and serfs to the elite.

    Well, sir: Herbert Armstrong achieved elite status.

    He did it with our help.

    A cursory reading of the Gospels indicates that Jesus did not seem to be impressed with the rich (powerful, well-connected) and, in fact, seemed to hold them in a certain amount of disdain. Men created these religious organizations, institutions and concepts as well as government powers. I’m quite skeptical of being subject to civil government because it was given by God for our good. My personal experience is that they ARE a terror to good works (I’ll tell you about the Chaplain Library System some time).

    Well says Revelation 18:4 —

    “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

    It doesn’t matter if you are a believer or not: It’s good advice.

    We have plagues enough.

    Reply

12. And wouldn’t you know it, Dr. Stanley Schmidt has an article about the scientific method in the latest Analog, where he points out that it only takes one observation to invalidate (falsify) a proposition… just one… let alone hundreds of prophecies gone south.

    Reply

13. If Armstrong had based his religion on UFOs, he would have to share the blame with UFO hoaxers. If he had based his religion on Scientology, he would have to share the blame with other Scientologists.

    But he didn’t. He based it on the Bible. He used Bible prophecy and high-demand scriptures he found in the Bible. So he shares the blame with other Bible hoaxers like Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and whoever wrote the book of Revelation. No matter how badly his interpretation of the Bible was in some cases, he still based a lot of what he taught on the Bible, so the Bible cannot be exonerated. The Bible lays a foundation that hoaxers and misguided people can work off of.

    It was Daniel who first said the end would come, not Herbert Armstrong. So 1975 in Prophecy was partly the fault of Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the apostles. Armstrong just added his own nonsense to their nonsense.

    People can talk about how bad Armstrong’s interpretations of prophecy were, as if it was all his fault. But where are the good interpretations? Do they have anything better? How can nonsense that people just made up be made good?

    Reply

14. Regarding anger:

    A lot of conservatives are angry with the left. A lot of liberals are angry with the right. A lot of people are angry at politicians. Some people are angry at the rich and might get a hell of a lot angrier if the bottom falls out of the economy. Some Muslims are very angry at the West. Some people are angry because of high taxes. A lot of people are angry for a lot of different reasons. It’s a human emotion. It’s normal. It is not exclusive to Armstrong’s followers or former followers.

    Generally speaking, I do not see Armstrong as an angry man, his church as an angry church, or his followers as people who are angry all the time. (Gerald Flurry is a exception to that.)

    As far as the people who left the COGs; if they are not angry for a while there is something the matter with them. They just wouldn’t be normal. People who were manipulated and jerked around have a right to be angry. And they should be. If they can control that anger and channel it to fighting the evil they were once a part of, then good for them. Anger is not evil in itself. Even the Bible (for those of you who believe in it) says God is angry with the wicked every day. Anger is a legitimate and appropriate response to injustice or immorality.

    Reply

15. For those who would like to explore the anger angle, you may look at “A Problem of Anger” on the Silenced forum:

    http://silenced.co/2012/02/a-problem-of-anger/

    Reply

16. [quote]”But he didn’t. He based it on the Bible. He used Bible prophecy and high-demand scriptures he found in the Bible. So he shares the blame with other Bible hoaxers like Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and whoever wrote the book of Revelation. No matter how badly his interpretation of the Bible was in some cases, he still based a lot of what he taught on the Bible, so the Bible cannot be exonerated. The Bible lays a foundation that hoaxers and misguided people can work off of. “[/quote]

    Of course the bible leads people astray. It says so. Jesus said so(Matthew 13:11, Paul said so(Romans 11:7,32) and pointed out that there is no way to organize in God’s name(Romans 8:29-30). The simple logical fact is, if there is a God who foreknows his own, from the beginning(Ephesians 1:4), there is not one thing you or I can do to alter what is goi ng to be. Therefore, logically, if Romans 8:29-30 is true, there are no “works” to perform, since we can;t alter our destiny, a nd if there is no God, the same thing holds true. In either case, there is no need to follow anyone, which again corresponds to Matthew 24:23, regarding the evident deception that would spring up. Did Daniel deceive us? His prophecy of the great image shows a solid evolution of money, from gold to “clay” , with clay being represented as a form of mortgage, as seen in Habakkuk 2:6, with the clay translated as a form of controlled loans.
    Notice, Babylon had a system of weights and measures that was limited in the power to expand the empire. That, in fact, was the “handwriting on the wall” you are weighed in the balance(like the monetary system) and found wanting. Persia conquered Babylon, using a form of coinage, pre-weighed money that included gold and silver, greatly accelerating their expansive power. Greece added more base metal, and Rome discovered that most any metal served for extorting power, simply by placing Caesar’s image on it.

    In history, this is what Toynbee referred to as “etherialization”, and Bucky Fuller called “ephemeralization”, which simply means doing more and more with less and less. By the “end time” of the images legs and ten toes, a confederation empire was developed using a form of debt mortgages to control all wealth, based on clay, which has a component called sand, which has a component called silicon.

    The bible deliberately allowed people to follow their own instincts, and never claimed to “call” just anyone.

    Reply

17. More anger:

    http://hwarmstrong.com/ratzmann.htm

    Goodness.

    Reply

18. Ralph, thanks for revealing (to me, anyway) the complexity of the analogies bound in Scripture. Coinage of the four empires never occured to me as a part of the “prophecy” in Daniel. Now we really go “base” as we use silicon to facilitate our exchange of virtual wealth. How poetic. And frightening. I know, I know, “Fear not”.

    And it follows that for those who are not “called” (and “chosen”), there is an absence of a certain kind of understanding, which handily explains why it is futile to attempt any explanation to those whose understanding simply isn’t there: The Isaac Asimov simile is “explaining rainbows to earthworms”.

    The same is true of those who have not inherited the facilities to even begin to understand science.

    Reply

19. Ralph, I don’t get where you are coming from. Do you believe the Bible contains revelation from God? If so, in what sense?

    Reply

20. Ralph wrote: “That, in fact, was the “handwriting on the wall” you are weighed in the balance(like the monetary system) and found wanting. Persia conquered Babylon, using a form of coinage, pre-weighed money that included gold and silver, greatly accelerating their expansive power. Greece added more base metal, and Rome discovered that most any metal served for extorting power, simply by placing Caesar’s image on it.”

    Yep. You are absolutely correct!

    Reply

21. First of all, silenced.co is suspect because of their unbalanced reporting. I did not read that particular article, but that’s because too much of their stuff is not worth reading.

    Second, one shooting in decades (so far as I know) in a group as large as the combined COGs is probably less than the national average for religious groups or secular organizations. The crime rate in the COGs is probably a lot lower then in the population at large.

    Reply

22. Do the suicides count?

    Reply

23. “Do the suicides count?”

    Ahh yes, the suicides. When will they stop.
    I can remember hearing from the pulpit the stories of the condemned. The secret sin, something they couldn’t overcome. What we all got during those times was the truth about the church corporate. That it was and is a mindless, callus, corporation without mercy or love for anybody or anything except the bottom line. And that would be money in case anyone has to take a guess.

    But more so are the destroyed lives and the forsaken potential in those who grew up in the cults. These kids were under a tremendous amount of pressure to conform to those “extra rules” that did not grant the free gift of salvation. The sacrifice of the Christ.

    Instead it was the sacrifice of all your freedoms, and potential, along with your mind, the day you became a “member”. We willing sold our birthright in exchange for HWA’s heretical teachings and totalitarian rule. We gave “them” permission to rule over our lives.

    Reply

24. Sure, suicides count, but they occur outside the church too. Does anybody know if the COG suicide count is higher than in the rest of society?

    Reply

25. The appropriate question should be whether or not the behavior would have occured if the people had not been exposed to Armstrongism.

    The answer is obvious.

    Reply

26. It looks as if much of the Gun Lap website is copied — a lot of it from Dennis Diehl, with Dennis’ picture mid page. Dennis assured us over at Silenced, he is NOT Gun Lap.

    Wonder how much is original, derivative and plagiarized?

    Reply

27. I got permission from Dennis to use some of his stuff, and I put his name on all the stuff that I got from him. Is that what you call “copied”?

    His name is on his stuff, and my name is on my stuff. Is that too hard for you to understand? Or are you just trying to stir up accusations?

    Anybody who goes to my site can see that–unless they are blind.

    I did not plagiarize anything and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Go ahead. Look for it. Read every article. Scrutinized every article. You will come up empty. And maybe you’ll learn something while you are at it.

    Thanks for visiting my site.

    Reply

28. Well, up to about 5 years ago, I was actually recommending atheism and agnosticism as a solution to Armstrongism. At that time, I considered religious folk to be “lesser animals”, and even called them Zombies to their faces on a bunch of the WCG related forums. And, it wasn’t just the Armstrongites whose behavior supported that attitude. People often become superstitious and downright buffoonish on paths which they select to spiritual enlightenment.

    But, alas, atheism wore kind of thin for me after about 25 years. I will say that it was somewhat of a cleansing vacuum that made stuff that had hurt us go away. And, non-belief never did the extensive damage to me, my family, or my life that Armstrongism had. But, after a while, I began to realize by conspicuous absence that something fundamental was just plain missing, missing in fact from both Armstrongism, and non-belief.

    Healing would certainly top the “missing” list. Also, a sense of purpose to life. And, then there was that non-descript but very nagging itch that somehow I could never make go away, although I confess to having been very hyperactive in attempting to scratch it through a wide variety of ways. I became tired of being driven by my emotions, and sterile, dispassionate logic is no kind of driver at all. Seriously, who wants to be Spock? There was also no sense of community or connectedness to others. At the time when I began declaring myself to be atheist, we as a nation were just beginning to enter the post-Christian era. Having been accustomed to being a pariah while I was a member of WCG, I became a different kind of pariah as an atheist. So, I’d lighten it up a bit by pointing out that I did in fact practice what many people called “Christian” ethics. Inside, I realized that I lacked the moral imperative to practice such ethics. If a society as a whole lacks such an imperative, gradually you will see erosion of the ethics. A couple of generations later, you have conditions similar to what you see in communist and totalitarian nations.

    I’m not sure that I could wholeheartedly recommend that someone “become a mainstream Christian”. That would be shallow. When Eric Clapton purchases a new guitar, he considers many things, such as the compatibility of his fingers with the fretboard, the tone he would be typically looking for, durability, preference in color, perhaps the weight of it on his shoulders in concert situations, and available features which would contribute to his playing. Recommending a particular church to another person would display about as much depth as buying a guitar simply because Eric Clapton had one like it. Recommending, on the other hand, that someone could meet and address a number of human needs by seeking a personal relationship with God could help them to embark on a very exciting and fulfilling odyssey. If they discover that participation in a church will enhance the journey, it’s up to them to do their “Eric Clapton” routine, possibly doing a little church hopping, and perhaps finding a group which speaks to them.

    There is wide diversity of thought in the Christian community that I had been totally unaware of as a non-believer. I’ve found that just as generalizations of minorities will often center on ridiculous and often antiquated stereotypes, considering Christians to be one homogenous group, part of an unintelligent “borg”, dehumanizes and blinds. People practice their beliefs to varying degrees, too. As a society, we have been largely educated away from a prejudiced mindset, many make Christians an exception, even though many Christians raise exemplary families, fight for things the majority of humanity considers to be good and right, take an active part in relief work and assisting the poor, and are law abiding citizens who believe it is their God-given responsibility to pay their taxes and support their leaders.

    I think the compelling activity incumbent upon all of us former Armstrongites is to help people leave what we know was a deceptive and toxic cult. If someone succeeds in breaking loose, we really shouldn’t pressure them to make a decision subtly validating the one we made for ourselves. We can share, but if others would seek a non-Armstrongite church, we need to realize that such a thing might actually be of therapeutic value to them in obtaining the healing which we all seek. If someone decides to temporarily be a non-believer, or permanently be one, that too is their decision.

    BB

    Reply

29. Byker Bob says he “did in fact practice what many people called “Christian” ethics.”

    A term I have heard for this behavior by atheists and agnostics is “secular Christianity.” Not a bad choice, actually. If one comes from a Christian tradition, the easiest transition out of the nonsense involved is to keep the parts that aren’t nonsense; the basic Golden Rule morality makes sense, and it works. There exist other religions with ethical/moral systems that also work, but why go thrashing about among them if you already have something adequate on hand? Use what you got. You can cripple your life by jettisoning your whole worldview at once.

    For what it’s worth, the man I learned the term “secular christianity” from (he insisted on the lower case “c”) said it has only two commandments: 1) Never take up more than one parking space, and 2) Always be kind to drunks.

    Beneath the facetiousness, those commandments metaphorically transmit serious messages that can be paraphrased as “Don’t usurp more than your share of common resources” and “Treat people who foul up with compassion.” A simpler paraphrase is “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

    If there is a god, he probably doesn’t really care whether you believe in him or not, as long as you keep these commandments. Maybe it’s just me, but I doubt he really gives a rat’s ass whether you keep the Days of Unleavened Bread or eat out on Saturday or not.

    Reply

30. Byker Bob, great post.

    Reply

31. Thanks, Gunner! One of the positive outgrowths from my past atheism is that I now apply objective thinking to my spiritual pursuits. Of course, I was much too young to do this when my parents dragged me into Armstrongism, but objective thinking might have been a good preventative skill for most who chose to go there as adults.

    Also, Retired Prof, it would certainly be a positive step if the human race practiced your post! That’d beat buying the world a Coke by a longshot.

    BB

    Reply

32. I agree with Bob and Retired Prof. Showing genuine kindness to others with out the rules package is an exceptional way to live. As I grow older I find that my patience with fools runs short but my compassion runs deeper.

    This world is a damned hard place to live in as it is. When everything seems to be falling apart around the world, I can always see the bright side in others. They (people) are like myself. They live, they have love and hate. It is I who choose to bring out one or the other. In this is the challenge. To live well and making the best of every situation.

    Bob, you stated “If a society as a whole lacks such an imperative, gradually you will see erosion of the ethics. A couple of generations later, you have conditions similar to what you see in communist and totalitarian nations.”

    As a side note, many of the people of the now former Soviet Union found their relief in the state run church as much as they could. Many don’t realize that many churches also went “under-ground” illegally in order to avoid the state run church racket. As it now stands, Russia continues to be a deeply religious society. The churches that still stand before the time of the revolution (1917) are being refurbished to their former glory.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church
    http://www.xxc.ru/english/foto/foto.htm

    Reply

    1. Correct! Russia is going through a resurgence of Christianity, and there is a huge “home church” movement afoot in Red China. If the current trends continue, China will soon be the worlds most populous Christian nation. We hear at church about courageous people actually smuggling Bibles as contraband into Communist countries at great peril to their own lives.

       Wouldn’t it just frost the ACOGs if all these nations converted to what HWA called “Christianity falsely so-called”, and the Apocalypse ended up not being necessary because that was in reality “the truth”?

       BB

       Reply

33. For the record, Dennis did give permission to Gun Lap.
    It is good that this collection now has more coverage.

    Reply

34. From Gun lap:

    “Ralph, I don’t get where you are coming from. Do you believe the Bible contains revelation from God?”
    The answer is yes. However, I will have to wait til later to answer that. Hopefuly, in the morning.

    Reply

35. A great question: is the bible the revealed word of God? Or as Gun Lap asks, do I believe it contains revelation from God? Retired Prof, as usual, responds in a solid and thoughtful way. The question of the bible as God’s revelation is a kind of Catch-22 with a built in paradox. If I say the bible IS revealed from God, I have two choices:
    1.I can try to show why and how it is revealed, which means I must depend on the general rules of logic and reason to demonstrate it
    2.I can simply say it is revealed, and that’s all there is to it, which tells us nothing.

    The Catch-22 is wrapped up in the first response, because if i can show how and why it is revealed, I have demonstrated a logical process by which ANYONE can demonstrate that revelation, so it is no longer dependent on revelation! It is not “revealed”, but merely a process of logical deduction and analysis.

    But if that’s true, then it is not necessary to reveal anything, and there is no need to assume a special guidance from God, since the logic of the statement is based on axiomatic demonstration of truth. The very fact that it must be revealed, says that it can’t be proven!

    For example, the Church-Turing thesis, which says that a brain is no more than a computer, since the brain is dependent on the same laws of physics as a computer. A computer, therefore, can be built which is the equal of the brain in every way. Anything that can be defined and translated into language, can then be translated into algorithms and programmed into a computer. Therefore, the instant I demonstrate the “proof” of a revelation, so can a computer!

    This means that number (2), above, is all we can say about revelations from God. If revealed, then they are NOT subject to logical deduction or inference, or the rules of logic to deduce their truth. Anything we can demonstrate as truth by logic and reason doesn’t need a God to reveal it. This is a form of Occam’s razor.

    So, since I answered “yes’ to the question above, I put myself in a precarious position of proving that the bible is a revelation from God.

    Here is the closest I or anyone can come:
    Is there proof of the existence of God? No.
    Is there any logical process by which we can demonstrate such existence? No.
    We are forced to conclude, therefore, that there exists no decision procedure, no algorithm, no process by which we may demonstrate that either we have a relationship with God, or that God even exists.
    (Please see my essay on Godel’s theorem which James has kindly kept in the “Ralph on everything” series).

    This conclusion can be summed up biblically in Romans 8:7, and Romans 9:16-22. There simply is no way to get “there’ from “here”.

    Can I cal this a revelation? In a way, because I have shown that the bible parallels what we have learned in regard to “God”. If the ‘carnal'(natural, fleshy) mind is enmity against god and can’t be subject to God, then all attempts to define God will result in infinite speciation of religious ideas about God, just as we see today. This, however, will also take us to HWA’s famous reference t Matthew 24, regarding deception. “Many will come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and will deceive many”.

    If Romans 8:7 is true, the inevitable result is exactly that predicted by jesus in Matthew 24. The harder people try to define God, the greater the number of religions. Today, there are over 38,000 versions of christianity alone. S, logically, what is the ONLY correct choice to make? Choose none of them! That is the only logically correct choice available! So what did Jesus say in that regard?

    Matthew 24:23, “then, if any man says to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, BELIEVE IT NOT”.

    You may say, “he meant ‘anybody other than me’.” Okay, let’s say that is so. How , exactly, do you go about such definition? There are over 38,000 versions trying to do exactly that. But if the natural mind is enmity against god and cannot be subject to God, no such decision is forthcoming.

    You simply cannot get “there’ from “here”, which makes Matthew 24:23 logically correct!

    So, what is the “revealed” truth? I just told you!There is absolutely nothing you can do that will demonstrate any closer relation to God, or even the existence of God. No works(Ephesians2:8-10). No ability to organize in God’s name(Matthew 24:23). This means, and can ONLY mean, that ALL religions are liars! “Let God be true, though every man a liar”.
    That can have only one correct meaning: that you are free. You are free of all religions, all governments, all systems of men, and that’s what Jesus said: You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

    Reply

36. Great quote from a “Facebook Friend”:
    “As the last thousand years show us, however, such simple binary statements of morality do not work. The instant we label something “good,” everyone with bad intentions will go over to it and adopt it as …camouflage.”

    Evolution. Moths with wing designs that look like large, predatory eyes. Deception built into the whole biological system for protection. This process goes right up to religion and government. If your government isn’t “good”, why obey it?

    When the US Constitution was rarified (RATified, I like that. Patrick Henry, on being informed of the proposed constitution, pointed out that he smelled a rat), it was presented as a complete system to the people, for their vote. They were simply to look at it as a total package, and vote on it as a full document. The idea that the people could look at each part and make recommendations was rejected outright. It would still be under consideration today if that were done. “Do you want a new constitution? Yes or no?” The people, in a very slight majority, said “yes”, but they had reservations regarding a Bill of Rights. North Carolina refused to endorse it until such a Bill was assured.

    Humans join religions as a package deal. We might have reservations, but its close to our taste, and others also like it, so what the hell? We can later make alterations and adapt, evolve, imitate other truth processes until we become interchangeable. Nothing “godlike” about it. Simple survival as a group.

    When the COGs could no longer accept the package deal presented with “proofs” that God exists, “proofs” of the bible, etc, they had to begin filtering out and adapting, or simply admit they were wrong. The WCG wasn’t “the one”. They were forced into a “worldly” or secular evaluation in which the “truth of God” was refined, and then they set up shop again, looking for converts. Evolution. A system faces extinction, is forced to adapt, finds new survival patterns with minimal change, seeking to become more interchangeable, as the original WCG did under Tkatch.

    The simple fact is, no human religions are correct. They are merely adaptations over time, following necessary survival strategies. The one and only obvious truth is to follow none of them. If we could organize in God’s name, the very process of organization will be subject to computation, which means there is no need for life, for uncertainty, for survival in any individual sense, because everything is reduced to a framework of rules and laws by which we can truthfully organize. That, however, would mean no necessity to separate church and state, no need to be “secular” as opposed to “religious” since all laws are computable, and by definition, “non-spiritual”. The most obvious answer, the one directly taught by Jesus and Paul is the one we can’t bring ourselves to accept. The natural mind is enmity against God, so we cannot prove “God’s truth”. Therefore, no need to follow any human conception of God, as Matthew 24:23 says.

    Reply

37. I have a small window for responses now so I’m tying several together. I’ll be gone for several days. I read Dennis Diehl’s essay on Paul and the “cosmic Christ”, but his thoughts do not capture the essence of what Paul said. There are many who fault Paul for the present confusion of christianity, citing his diverse background in religion, but in fact, Paul simply could not have started any organized christian religion due to the logic of Romans 8:7, Romans 8:29-30, and Romans 9:16-22.

    I’ve already explored the consequences of Romans 8:7. If the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God, then all interpretations concerning God, even within christianity, will speciate into thousands of different versions. If God foreknows and predestines his children from the beginning, that alone would cancel “works” that ‘earn salvation”, since anything you do is foreknown by God’s omniscience. Or as William James put it, if God is all knowing, your salvation cannot be dependent on freewill choice, and if you have freewill choice, God is not all knowing.

    Paul has first posited that God is all knowing, and then stated that he does, in fact, k now his children in advance. Christianity is forced to interpret this in many different ways, because it puts “freewill salvation” right out of business. If there are doubts, Paul continues in Romans 9:16-22 to show that there simple exists no decision process by which we may prove any special relation to God. Can’t be done. Therefore, christianity as we know it today, with its Mithra variations, could NOT have been started by Paul.

    What DID Paul actually say? Well, since there is Romans 8:29-30, we can look to see who actually did, by biblical standards fulfill those requirements. Isaac comes to mind. He was foreknown, predestined, called, and born to fulfill a promise made in advance. This, in fact, is what Paul repeats in different places; Galatians 3:29, if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 4:28; now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of the promise.

    So, Paul has cancelled human reason (Romans 8:7), eliminated the possibility of freewill choice(Romans 8:29-30, 9:16-22) and left us with those who are born “as Isaac was”, foreknown, predestined, and called.

    Assuming that is true, who are they? There is no way of knowing, even if it is true, because the ability to identify them, eliminates all possibility of copy or “camouflage”(see my statements above). If we can identify who they are, then we can know, without doubt, whether we are “saved” or “damned”, or future kings, or whatever, but we have no such ability, which leads again to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:23. Beginning in Romans 9:6, Paul’s teachings on the matter are clear and simple, AND they eliminate all possibility of “freewill” organized christianity.

    “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but ‘in Isaac shall thy seed be called'”

    In verse 8. Paul makes a very important distinction: “That is, they which are the children of the flesh(nation of israel) these are NOT the children of GOD, but the children of the PROMISE are counted for the seed. What was those terms of promise? If Abraham believed and obeyed, his son, Isaac, would be the firstborn, a type of many to come, born under EXACTLY THE SAME CONDITIONS AS ISAAC, foreknown, predestined, called, justified. Did Abraham perform any “works” to alter this? He tried, by producing Ishmael, but that was rejected. Everything that was done, concerning isaac, was done in a way that Abraham could not alter or aid in any way. All he could do was say, “okay”. Genesis 21, God visited Sarah, and God did as he promised, and Sarah gave birth. Nothing there from Abraham.

    What promise was Paul referring to in Romans 9? Look at verse 9. “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son”. Paul has directly tied the whole process to isaac, Abraham, and Gd, while EXCLUDING Israel from the promise(Galatians 3:17). You have the promise between God and Abraham that certain children are to be born, “as Isaac was(Gal. 4:28)” and 430 years later, there was the covenant at Sinai, which cannot “dis-annul” the promise. Look at Romans 9:11, and then 12 thru 22. Paul here has directly stated the “gospel” in a nutshell. God made a deal with Abraham, saying, in effect, I will cause a son named Isac to be born. You, Abraham have nothing to do in the matter, no “works”. All you must do is believe and trust that I will do this thing. Other children will then be born in fulfillment of this promise, made between you and me”.

    That’s it! Pure simplicity! There is nothing any human organization can do to alter it or thwart it, and there is nothing that can be done to improve or control it. So, what if there is no God? Well, you don’t have to join any church or enslave yourself to their “works” and ‘freewill” doctrine. What if Paul’s statements are true? Same thing! HWA was right about heaven and hell. Jews didn’t believe that. There is either a group of specially known people to fulfill that promise, which means we can;t do anyting to alter it, or it is false, which means pretty much the same thing. In either case, we are free from human religious systems. All of them.

    Reply

38. ‘As a society, we have been largely educated away from a prejudiced mindset, many make Christians an exception, even though many Christians raise exemplary families, fight for things the majority of humanity considers to be good and right, take an active part in relief work and assisting the poor, and are law abiding citizens who believe it is their God-given responsibility to pay their taxes and support their leaders.”

    Oh no! God given responsibility to pay their taxes? Say it ain’t so! Jesus, in teaching us how to deal with trespasses(Matthew 18:15-18) said that if our adversary doesn’t want to settle by community standards, treat him as a “gentile and tax collector”. IOW, shun him, ignore him. If the Jews of Jesus’ day mentioned publicans, they were referring to tax collectors, and accused Jesus of hanging out with “publicans and sinners”, to which Jesus responded that the healthy did not need a doctor. Only the sick needed a doctor. Therefore, we see Jesus saying tax collectors are sick people! Sick, sick, sick! 🙂 Examination of the bible itself would show our limitations in taxpaying, that we don’t simply owe it to God and his leaders because they say so.

    Reply

39. The Christians of today and yesteryear used the scripture that God chooses their leaders to rule over them. They pay their taxes and submit to the secular authority.

    This belief that God puts your national leaders in charge places your church under secular control. The members are to support the leader even if he is a mass murderer. To revolt against the leader is to be at war with God.

    In the early times of Hitler, the Christian leaders in Germany used the scriptures to unite their membership to get behind Hitler. The German Christians were lead by Ludwig Muller. Muller supported Hitler and in 1933 he was given the title of “Reich Bishop.”

    Religion was to once again play a role that would decimate humanity and create hopelessness in the spirit of countless human beings.

    “There has never been anything more grandiose on the earth than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.” – Adolph Hitler – “The Nazi Persecution of the Churches” by J.S. Conway.

    What logically followed in the ensuing years was the persecution of the church. The time for new enemies was at hand.

    Martin Bormann:
    “National Socialist and Christian concepts are incompatible. The Christian Churches build upon the ignorance of men and strive to keep large portions of the people in ignorance because only in this way can the Christian Churches maintain their power. On the other hand, National Socialism is based on scientific foundations. Christianity’s immutable principles, which were laid down almost two thousand years ago, have increasingly stiffened into life-alien dogmas. National Socialism, however, if it wants to fulfill its task further, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific researches.

    “The Christian Churches have long been aware that exact scientific knowledge poses a threat to their existence. Therefore, by means of such pseudo-sciences as theology, they take great pains to suppress or falsify scientific research…No one would know anything about Christianity if pastors had not crammed it down his throat in his childhood. The so-called loving God by no means reveals the knowledge of His existence to young people, but amazingly enough, and despite His omnipotence, He leaves this to the efforts of a pastor. When in the future our youth no longer hear anything about this Christianity, whose doctrine is far below our own, Christianity will automatically disappear.

    “[…] When we National Socialists speak of a belief in God…[we mean] [t]he force which moves all these bodies in the universe, in accordance with natural law, is what we call the Almighty or God. The assertion that this world-force can worry about the fate of every individual, every bacillus on earth, and that it can be influenced by so-called prayer or other astonishing things, is based either on a suitable dose of naivete or on outright commercial effrontery.”

    “Any influence that would impair or damage the leadership of the people exercised by the Fuhrer with the aid of the NSDAP has to be eliminated. To an ever increasing degree the people must be wrested from Churches and their agents, the pastors…Only the Reich leadership, together with the party and the organs and associations connected with it, has a right to lead the people. Just as the harmful influence of astrologists, soothsayers, and other swindlers has been suppressed by the state, so it must be absolutely impossible for the Church to exercise its old influence.”

    Martin Bormann, Reich Leader, 1942, ‘National Socialist and Christian Concepts are Incompatible’

    If this tells the church goer anything, it is that religion itself cannot be of God, but of men who manipulate your fear of death and your wish for continuance of life beyond the great divide.

    If there be a god, it is not the one taught by any man. Not by books or rules, nor pronouncement, god can only be found in your actions as you live your existence out here on earth.
    Take the oath.

    Reply

40. Well, this is just my understanding and opinions, but I personally believe that God gave man free will, which means that sometimes wrong choices can be made. One of the God-given prerogatives of secular government is the responsibility for dealing with those who make wrong choices. That’s where most citizens would tend to experience the government’s authority. Of course, there is also national defense which, in states with good ideology, preserves freedom. Government can be a peacekeeper amongst varying factions.

    However, iirc, if one must make a choice between what God says is right, or obey a differing opinion from government, then obey God. The Third Reich was an absolutely horrid era of national insanity for the German people. However, there were Christian people who hid and protected Jews from Hitler and the SS.

    One of the main problems that our own US Constitution remedied was state religion; the state telling its citizens what church they had to participate in. State religion eschews freedom of thought, which is the only environment in which Christianity can function and actually have meaning. Decisions made under force or duress are never sincere or valid.
    Varying degrees of state religion were practiced throughout history, but the most egregious example occurred when the Roman Empire co-opted Christianity, and attempted to utilize it as a method of empowerment over its citizens. Unfortunately, that line of thinking did not die with the Roman Empire, and even certain churches aspire to, and attempt to achieve that level of power over their membership today.

    That is why I continue to believe that a personal (not corporate) relationship with God is the most likely factor which would produce Godly actions in our daily lives. It’s just got to be a personal thing without “the collectors” and power mongers stepping all over it.

    BB

    Reply

41. Bob wrote:
    “That is why I continue to believe that a personal (not corporate) relationship with God is the most likely factor which would produce Godly actions in our daily lives.”

    I certainly can’t argue with that. To let a man get between you and God always ends badly….for you. The profit whores that run these religious collectives are in it for themselves. No doubt the money is good and you don’t really have to work the people too much if you train them well.

    Reply

42. Ralph, do you think there are other inspired texts besides the Bible?

    Reply

    1. Gun Lap, what I think is basically irrelevant. Romans 8:7. Anyone wht says “here is Christ, or there”(Matt 24:23) is not to be believed. The simple fact is, you can’t get “there” from “here”. Zen Buddhism would agree.

       Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.