Author: James

I have been reminded that to put someone down because they don’t agree with my point of view is pure Armstrongism.

If you wish to call my presentation “my point of view”, there might be some truth to it. But in fact, when I left the WCG, the first thing that plagued me in any search for truth, is how to recognize truth that is somehow NOT dependent on my point of view, or Paul’s point of view or Jesus’ point of view, but actually was truth from any perspective I wished to view it?

Can it be done? Paul himself is credited with writing that the carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God, which presents a kind of syllogism from which to begin.

All human minds are enmity against God
I am human
My mind is enmity against God

So how would I proceed to find truth about God? Can I escape my humanness? Is there something, anything, that would allow me to somehow proceed toward one complete, consistent truth?

That was exactly the dilemma, in regard to mathematical truth, faced by mathematicians such as David Hilbert.

If the mind is subject to truth, then there should be some formal system by which we can proceed from axiomatic foundations in order to get to truth in one complete, consistent package.

Surely, the mathematicians reasoned, if we are careful and develop our line of theorems extending from axiomatic foundations with great care, we can proceed to develop a system that will simply lead us to truth and avoid human error altogether!

And then a man named Kurt Godel, in the 1930s, came along and dropped a bomb on all their hopes and dreams. he demonstrated by means of a most ingenious theorem that there simply is no way we will ever predictably develop any formal system that will lead us to truth in one complete, consistent, package.

Regarding truth, we can’t get “there” from “here”. There simply is no way!

In a historical parallel to this same development, at about the time of Jesus, there came a man known as rabbi Hillel. The Jews, in their attempts to adapt Torah to the various influences of the world of trade and commerce, had developed the Mishna, Gemarra, and finally the Talmud.

But the problem face by the Jews was in some ways similar to that faced by Hilbert and other mathematicians in the 1930s. The pressing issue faced by Talmudist and rabbis was, how can we know if we have properly developed the commentary of law, such that it is fully consistent with the Torah?

Hillel devised a brilliant structure of reasoning called the “seven laws”. From these laws of reasoning, Hillel concluded that if the mind was disciplined, if it trained in the proper methods, the human mind could devise a system of thought that was consistent to the Torah.

But Hillel had a contemporary, who most people recognize as one called Jesus. The rabbis of the day were Pharisees. They were the “layman” representatives of the people, and they weren’t exactly unpopular. Jesus even admitted that they sat in “Moses’ seat”. And then he proceed to blast them and call them hypocrites. He even said “But be not ye called rabbi”. Now there was a real slap in the face. The rabbis had claimed themselves to be the representatives of God’s law, the ones who, by patience and study, could lead the people to righteousness. Jesus said don’t be called rabbi, or father, or master(Mister. Remember that?)

Now think about this. Hillel had said that by proper discipline and logic, rabbis could in fact proceeded to rightly interpret the law. Assuming that God is the sum and source of truth, that there is no contradictions to be found in God’s wisdom, God would be the same as truth in mathematical formal systems, since truth is consistent with all truth.

So IF the rabbis could actually keep the law by proper reasoning, then Jesus would have to be wrong. The rabbis had every right to prosecute in the name of the law.

And if that wasn’t enough, Paul came along with a real slap in the face and said that the natural, carnal mind cannot be subject to God’s laws! Assuming Paul was a Pharisee, he had just disavowed the very foundations of his own beliefs!

Was Jesus and Paul right, or were the rabbis of the Pharisees right? We can now look to Godel’s theorem in mathematics as the final arbiter. Jesus and Paul were right! If God is absolute truth, we can no more get to God by any formal process of thought than we can get to truth in any complete sense by any finite, rational process of thought.

In fact, the Pharisees did NOT speak the truth! They could not speak the truth in any complete, consistent sense. Yet they tried to apply the truth as they reasoned it according to law. But in John 8:33, Jesus said they were of their father, the devil.

Let’s look at that. If the Pharisees were trying to establish their righteousness through law, and if all earthly law existed under the authority of Satan(Matthew 4, Luke 4), then all mechanical, finite, rational, legal attempts to arrive at truth must be of Satan.

If any person, including me, tried to establish a “special relationship” with truth or God in any absolute sense, then that person would be wrong. It cannot be done by any process of logic, reason, or legalism. It is mathematically proven to be impossible!

So how do I know that the teachings of Jesus and Paul were right? Because that is exactly what they said!

Paul pointed it out plainly in Romans 8 and 9, and repeated the idea so there would be no doubt as to what he was saying. There exists no decision procedure, no “work” that any person can perform, that will earn him “salvation”(Ephesians 2:8-10).

So how do I know I’m right? because I just told you the truth. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to simply show me a logical, rational, finite mechanical process of thought by which you can prove any special relationship at all to God.

The fact is, you simply can’t do it. Therefore. I am right. And so was Jesus and Paul, even if Jesus and Paul never actually made those statements. They are true simply because they are true.

0 Comments

Of the 38,000 versions of Christianity emphasizing being “born again”, the very idea has been reduced to a concept about as useless as “teats on a boar hog”, as farmers in my neck of the woods used to say.

For those “experts” in the ex-WCG fold, it has no meaning at all, nor should it.

But that is actually what makes it of such value to every person.

Let’s look at the phrase as used by Jesus in John 3. “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God”.

In that context, what is a kingdom? It’s a government, basically. But Jesus, in this passage, gave it a special context by calling it a kingdom of God. This was rather shocking to Nicodemus, since, as a Jew, a rabbi, he assumed that he was actually born to inherit the “kingdom of God”.
It was so disturbing that he asked Jesus if it was somehow necessary that a man re-enter his mother’s womb.

But Jesus didn’t give much of a definition of the term. We can look at the Greek translation and see that he was actually talking about a birth “from above”, but so what? Big deal.

As we see from verse 8, there was nothing significant about the idea, no process of organization, nothing that would separate a “born again” person from another.

What would be the value, if any, of such a term?

Actually, it has a great deal of value, in purely physical, pragmatic terms. Look at another reference to this concept in John 1:12-13:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”.

If we place this alongside of what Jesus said to Nicodemus, it totally discredits any birthright inheritance of Jews. It’s saying, in effect, that there can be no physical, earthly government that can represent God by virtue of any physical birth or any control imposed by humans.

The implications of these two scriptures is that they not only challenge the physical authority of Israel, but the physical authority of any government that would claim citizenship by birth.

If you are “born of God”, you are not born of the will of men. That doesn’t signify any metaphysical, special, otherworldy concept. It simply means that you can choose to be “born” outside any government that would be imposed by the will of men.

That would mean, as Thomas Jefferson put it, that it is a self evident truth that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. It means that person’s physical birth within any territory does not automatically make him or her subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

For a better understanding of the pragmatic applications, let’s take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

In this we see a link between “birth”, “citizenship”, and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

What does that last phrase mean? Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio pointed out that “Indians” born in the U.S. maintained tribal relations that did not make them subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else…subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

The Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, implied two requirements: born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction.

Now, it is possible to be “born or naturalized” in the U.S. and still not be subject to its jurisdiction. Well, John 1:12-13 would suggest a good reason. But there is also another connective issue related to this: the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

So, being “born again” in the context that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, is one of liberation from human governments and control by human governments. “Congress shall make no law….”

But the Supreme Court has declared that the “Due Process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” the First Amendment. How can any law incorporate no law? The argument is that freedom of religion is to be protected by “due process” of Constitutional law.

But here’s the problem: If the federal government incorporates the due process clause in protection of the First Amendment, then suddenly the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment no longer provides protection against the federal government. What results is a kind of protection racket; “we’ll protect you from us if you pay”.

But Jesus himself advocated settlement of issues out of court(Matthew 5:25, 18:15-18). Paul also advocated settlement outside of state authorities (1 Corinthians 6), so that “due process” is imp;lied as belonging to religions equally to the state. In fact, congress can make no law saying otherwise.

The only limitation on this power provided by both Paul and Jesus is that religion cannot advocate vengeance. That, and that alone, is reserved to the state.

So, since due process of law has been defined as ancient law coming from as far back as Magna Carta, and since it transcends the power of Constitutional law, it is a power reserved to any person who declares freedom of conscience from the law. It cannot be a power defined by the federal government, nor the state government. It is a power reserved to the individual, a power to be “born of God” “born again” not born “of the will of men”.

It is the full summation of your right to face all accusers, with the vindication of God, the right to ask, “who is wronged by my actions?”

Or, as Paul states in Romans 8:33 “Who can lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?”

Ah, but who are God’s elect? Paul says only God knows the answer to that question, which means that you are free of the governments of men unless you harm another.

2 Peter 2:19 : “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage”.

The bible is about freedom from men.

Comments

So far, those negative responses I’ve received have shown very little substance. Mostly they’re a type of sly ad hominem. Remember when you were just a peon in the old WCG? Do you remember that smirk on the ministers’ faces if you asked them a question?

Ex-WCG members have learned from it, and they have developed quite an effective immunity against any exploration of ideas. That immunity is reflected, not in any remarks of intellectual substance, but implied belittling of the “messenger” rather than exploring the “message”.

The ultimate logical flaw in their reasoning is that, in showing how independent they are in their capacity to attack, there is no opportunity whatever for integrative learning. The sly remarks, so well administered by WCG ministers, has been learned, but very little more.

Basically, the argument says “Look at me! I can attack him! He’s really stupid!”

Of course you wouldn’t come right out and say that. The ad hominem content of your argument is masked, as in the “Retired Prof’s” statement that he was just too nice to say “I’m full of it”.

It’s quite possible that I am, except for one glaring, obvious, undeniable fact: Of all the masked ad hominem, of all the hints at my obvious stupidity, not one person has shown the first scrap of evidence in any respect at all to demonstrate that I’m wrong.

Does it matter? I suppose not. Most of the ex-WCGites are so full of hatred and scorn for HWA that they will spend their lives grinding their teeth and “proving” that everyone else is an idiot.

Of course you can contrast that with those who spend their lives trying to prove that HWA really was a prophet, and they really didn’t waste their lives trying to follow him.

Between those two extremes, there are those who are genuinely interested in learning, who actually did care deeply for the time spent with friends, however deceived they might have been.

The problem is, the two extremes I describe above are very maladaptive in their reactions. They will attack those who don’t share their point of view. They might not insult, since they’re too “nice”, but they will imply, they will insinuate, they will work to every little sneaky extreme to discredit the messenger while avoiding ever examining the truth or falsehood of the message.

This, unfortunately, doesn’t require a great deal of intelligence. Most any illiterate gang member can be a master of it. I learned it quite well in the marines, and nobody can accuse them of being highly intellectual.

Basically, the ad hominem attack is an excuse for not being able to think. If “I” can belittle “you”, and discredit “you” before others, then “I” am more important than “you”.

But in all of that, you have proven absolutely nothing. You have shown no capacity for critical thought, no ability to demonstrate any worthwhile level of intelligence, and you have only shown that you can attack, belittle, and discredit. I could do that when I was twelve years old.

Comments