Pages

Sunday, 23 September 2007

Cover Up


John Morgan is the former WCG member who wrote Flying Free, an account of his life in the world of Armstrongism. Now John has completed a new project, this time with a wider audience in mind, an investigation of the death of Diana.

The PR material for the book reads:

Cover-up of a Royal Murder
is a thorough investigation of the British inquiry – the Paget report – into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed. It uses eye-witness, documentary and other evidence to prove that the conclusions drawn in the Paget report are fundamentally flawed -- yet it is the Paget report that is set to form the basis for the upcoming British inquest. This is the book that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Princess Diana was murdered and that there is a lot more to the Paris crash than the French and British investigations have revealed. "Cover-up" provides credibility to the lingering doubts of a large section of the British and international public -- doubts that remain even 10 years after the crash. This book lays down a huge challenge to those who believe the death of Diana Princess of Wales was just a tragic accident. Cover-up of a Royal Murder exposes one of the greatest cover-ups of our time.

Judging from the meticulous work John did on Flying Free, this should be an enlightening read for anyone interested in the British royals. More information can be found here.

51 comments:

Lussenheide said...

Some hard questions we have to ask about Princess Diana:

*Would we be as excited over her and her legacy if she wasnt as physically beautiful or as young as she was?

*Would we care as much if she had not have died in Paris while in the company of her lover?

In all honesty, the purient interest in Diana is out of context compared to her historical contribution to society.

We must face the hard truth that Princess Diana was nothing much more than a media creation. An image, a personna, that has morphed into a modern day mythological fairy tale that is much removed from reality.

I say this not in spite or in a spirit of meanness. It exists in the COG as well... the inordinate need to create the myth, and super hero, rather than accepting just how everyday we all are, even our supposed "Leaders".

Every human is made in the image of God. Somehow this just isnt enough to excite the common man.

Lussenheide

Anonymous said...

Lussenheide said:

In all honesty, the purient interest in Diana is out of context compared to her historical contribution to society.

Mother Teresa and the Princess died within one week of each other. And I found it most telling about us humans at that time about where our priorities lay. The imbalance of attention surrounding the death of these two famous people was extraordinary, IMHO. One lived a life of idle luxury, while the other lived a life of intentional poverty, to better serve her fellow man. Yet who received all the accolades, the tributes, the mounds of flowers piled upon her grave?

But it gets even worse. Certain "Christians" have even expressed the idea that since Mother Teresa was Catholic she could not possibly have known the true God and, indeed, may even have to take her chances in the 2nd rez. Yes, perhaps these same "Christians" will show her the way to the true God, as they rule with their iron rods in the KOG, and live like the Princess did.

Well, gag me with a spoon! I have no doubt that it was some of these same "Christians" who bought that silly song of John-Elton's doings that knocked White Christmas out of first place for all time initial release sales. They probably even justified their purchase as doing the work of God to displace that evil Xmas tripe with something much more musically significant.

Anonymous said...

"But it gets even worse. Certain "Christians" have even expressed the idea that since Mother Teresa was Catholic she could not possibly have known the true God ..."

well, according to her letters that were recently published, that appears to be fact.


"...and, indeed, may even have to take her chances in the 2nd rez."

well, that IS what the bible tells us, right? God does not comdemn anyone for what they don't know, especially if the only way for them to know it is for Him to allow them to.



Personally, I think the reason for trying to find a conspiracy is to try and discredit the Royal Family, and the reason for trying to discredit the Royal Family is to take a swipe at HWA, and in doing so discredit the idea that the British are decendants of Israel.

Diana was (as Charles is) just another misguided liberal. They will have an opportunity to see clearly one day.

Anonymous said...

British are addicted to royalty through and through,
Around which fantastic stories grew and flew,
This addiction to the royal, famous and wealthy,
Simply cannot be healthy,
Perhaps they should watch more Doctor Who.

Anonymous said...

Armstrongists insist that they are royal,
Any suggestions otherwise make their blood boil,
But if the truth be well known,
Their claims are overblown,
Facts do their fantasies foil.

Corky said...

Personally, I think the reason for trying to find a conspiracy is to try and discredit the Royal Family, and the reason for trying to discredit the Royal Family is to take a swipe at HWA, and in doing so discredit the idea that the British are decendants of Israel.

That has been debunked a long time ago and proven to be false with DNA in recent years. Do try and pay attention!

Anonymous said...

For a time British Israelism had its way,
Herbert Armstrong made it so in his heyday,
But wouldn't you know,
Research the theories blow,
All we needed was a little DNA.

Anonymous said...

"...and, indeed, may even have to take her chances in the 2nd rez."

well, that IS what the bible tells us, right?


Perhaps. A good story. The Scriptures are a little thin. And even with Revelation 20, it appears that the Armstrongists have it wrong anyway:

1) There is no time between the millennium and the second resurrection -- none;
2) Satan is loosed a little season;
3) Coincidentally, the second resurrection occurs: This means that Satan is around during however long that time is;
4) The Devil gathers the nations of those resurrected in the second resurrection to fight against Christ and the whole bunch is defeated;
5) God the Father comes down from Heaven;
6) The Great White Throne judgment begins after the second resurrection period is over;
7) There becomes a new heaven and new earth and those ungodly after all this are so much nuclear ash.

But then again, Scripture is rather tenuous and not much can be found in either the Old or New Testaments. Revelation and Ezekiel are the exceptions but certainly open to interpretation: The need for two witnesses and all that. Yes, yes, Jesus and parables. Parables illustrate. Too many use them for proofs. That's just plain wrong.

There's something else disturbing. Nowhere in the New Testament is it shown that the Apostles taught about "the Plan of God" based on the Feasts and Holydays. There is no mention of it in the epistles. There are those who insist they did, but "we must read between the lines". That certainly opens a bag of snakes: Do enough reading between the lines and myopia sets in -- you can make Scripture say whatever you want it to say. One would think the there would be at least two explicit mentions of it, but there doesn't seem to be.

And so it is with man made religions: Using a stray fact here and there with plenty of imagination to build the fantasies.

XCGMouse said...

Ditto to Lussenheide's remarks.

Maybe, John Morgan is trying to show you can successfully extricate yourself from the Armstrong cult and still be a crackpot.

Anonymous said...

Maybe, John Morgan is trying to show you can successfully extricate yourself from the Armstrong cult and still be a crackpot.

That's a given: A psychopath subverts perception so badly that it may take more than a lifetime to recover. Everything becomes an extreme and people lose both their priorities and their mental balance. This is just another example of someone going off tilting at windmills after encountering Armstrongism and losing their sanity.

The question to be asked: Just why did John Morgan need to write this book as opposed to writing something like "Chicken Soup for the Soul"? Why not something positive? The answer lies in the subversion of everything good and positive by the negative twists of death, doom, devastation, destruction of Armstrongism, looking for conspiracies and bad behavior under every rock and in every nook and cranny.

Anonymous said...

Well.

Proverbs does warn not to go with an angry man lest you learn his ways.

Herbert Armstrong was an angry man.

Anonymous said...

The author still has an unhealthy obsession with conspiracies-from Idenity of Modern Israel & The Bible is a Coded Book to Royal Cover-Up.

Di wouldn't have died if (1)the French had a steel guard rails next to the danderous concrete tunnel pillars &(2)she was taken to a US-style Trauma Center instead of protracted on-the-scene medical "care".

This reminds me: "must avoid driving in 20-years-out-of-date Europe".

Anonymous said...

Oh Minimalist! And here we thought it was just a drunk driver paid by the paraparazzi that was responsible! Bad roads?! Inadequate emergency medical care?!

Next you'll be saying that her husband had nothing to do with it either!

Anonymous said...

I've got to give some credit to John Morgan for not being a one trick pony. He wrote about his experiences with Armstrongism and presumably is done with it. Now he has tackled another subject. Yes, some elements of his Armstrong experience are going to be influences, as they unfortunately are with all of us. But, the bottom line is that John seems to be moving on, and writing for the mainstream of humanity.

Do I think all of the hoopla surrounding Princess Di's death is overblown? Yes. Most of what I've read is what you'd expect from tabloids.

Was Mother Teresa a saint? I don't know. It appears that she did some remarkable things for others, denying herself all of her life. Will she not make it into the Kingdom, or heaven because she didn't keep the sabbath, holy days, tithe, or abstain from unclean meats? Who can really know the answer to this? It all boils down to what the New Covenant really consists of, which was apparently a point of much argument during the time of the Apostle Paul, and seemingly still is in certain quarters.

BB

Anonymous said...

Shortly after beginning work in Calcutta's slums, the spirit left Mother Teresa.

"Where is my faith?" she wrote. "Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness... If there be God — please forgive me."

"Such deep longing for God… Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal," she said.

"What do I labor for?" she asked in one letter. "If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true."

According to her letters, Mother Teresa died with her doubts. She had even stopped praying, she once said.

As her fame increased, her faith refused to return. Her smile, she said, was a mask.

In other words..she was a genuine human being unwilling and unable to feel what was expected of her but what she actually felt. Good for her!

Anonymous said...

What is new.

British royal history is littered with assassinations,executions,murders
as well as a whole retinue of bastards.
Her Majesty was more or less forced by public pressure into making an appearance after Diana's death.

Having said all this,HM QE2 has brought some sort of dignity to this family over the last 50 years.

But,they are only people after all and stuffy royal attitudes and values are being challenged by the younger set.

As to whether Diana was murdered, the jury is still probably out.

Seamus

Anonymous said...

What is new.

British royal history is littered with assassinations,executions,murders
as well as a whole retinue of bastards.
Her Majesty was more or less forced by public pressure into making an appearance after Diana's death.

Having said all this,HM QE2 has brought some sort of dignity to this family over the last 50 years.

But,they are only people after all and stuffy royal attitudes and values are being challenged by the younger set.

As to whether Diana was murdered, the jury is still probably out.

Seamus

Anonymous said...

The death of Dianna was truly tragic for her family and those whom she helped and served. She did help those less fortunate and her humanitarian interests will certainly be missed.

However, she was not someone I personally knew, nor, during her lifetime had much if any impact on those I have known or anyone who knew them. She was not a member of our family or extended family. She wasn't even a countryman.

There are many more people who can and should be of interest closer to home and they are still alive. While we may admire her contributions, we should move on, and, if we can, do what we can do to make the world a better place.

Anonymous said...

"Oh Minimalist! And here we thought it was just a drunk driver"

Inexpensive Guard Rails have saved the life of many drunks. Pity the French have other priorities like handing out welfare to hoards of Muslim immigrants.

Anonymous said...

Mother Teresa:
"What do I labor for?" .. Jesus, You also are not true."

That's good , sounds like she was on the cutting edge of scholarship..maybe she had a copy of The Jesus Puzzle at her bedside ?

Unknown said...

lh>>Some hard questions we have to ask about Princess Diana<<

Firstly, you do write a load of nonsense, neither understanding what you say nor whereof you affirm. But what about asking some hard questions about how she was treated by her husband? Was it not him who were responsible for the breakup their marriage, and the cause of all her subsequent problems?

Secondly, although it would be futile to carry on a discussion here around the unanswered questions relating the Princess's death, you might like to explain why the white car, that supposedly caused the accident, was never found.

Thirdly, the only thing worth saying about John Morgan is, if he failed at being a Christian, how can he see clearly to succeed at anything else?

Tom

Anonymous said...

Tom, Tom, Tom. Does it hurt to be such a plonker?

Anonymous said...

From John Morgan's Flying Free:

"When I talk to fellow Christians, and they find out that I no longer attend any church,
most of them look on me as someone in need of spiritual help. They look on me as a
weaker Christian – if a Christian at all! They talk to me as though I have fallen from a
position of spiritual strength.
"The truth is the opposite. I feel spiritually stronger now, than at any other time in my
life. I feel that a Christian who doesn’t attend a physical church, has a spiritual
freedom that churchgoers probably are unable to experience."


Vista Badmin, you didn't read the book, you made a false accusation. John Morgan considers himself a Christian.

Moron? Imbecile? Idiot?

Or are you just a pompous idolatrous fool slandering and libeling Christians?

Tom, you have failed at being a Christian and wouldn't recognize one on a bet. Everything you say is rubbish.

You have no right to express your opinions and to be taken seriously.

Questeruk said...

'Tom, you have failed at being a Christian and wouldn't recognize one on a bet. Everything you say is rubbish.

You have no right to express your opinions and to be taken seriously.'

While I don't necessarily agree with Tom, you seem to be making an identical accusation about Tom, and him 'failing at being a Christian'.

Be careful with accusations

Unknown said...

anon>>John Morgan considers himself a Christian.<<

And I consider myself Santa Claus. Does that make me Santa?

Anonymous said...

Questeruk, Christians are not liars.

Note that Vista Badmin said he believes he is Santa Claus. We know that to be a lie. He is lying.

Furthermore, he made it clear that though he believes we should honor Herbert Armstrong, he calls Herbert Armstrong's ministers hirelings. Then he makes it clear that in keeping the Sabbath he's more than willing to break the Fourth Commandment by eating out in restaurants -- a practice recommended by the hirelings, but not by Ezra and Nehemiah. He decides for himself what is right and wrong without regard to the Laws of man or God -- a very good representative of the pick and choose / mix and match cafeteria religion of Herbert Armstrong.

Last, but not least, he slanders and libels others without either proof or reason.

He is not a Christian. Not only that, because he claims he is Santa Claus, he is an idolater. If you say he said it in jest, then consider Jesus' instructions of letting your "Yeah" be "Yeah" and your "Nay" be "Nay".

Given his propensity for just making things up, arbitrarily redefining terms and trying to make everyone prove every word they say and hoping the rest of us will accept a lot less from him, his claim that John Morgan is not a Christian has no basis whatsoever.

Given his lack of attention to detail and propensity for error, one really wonders if there will come a day that his incompetence will be discovered by his employer in a terribly meaningful way from which no one will be able to recover.

As for being careful about accusations, it is Vista Badmin who attacks with false accusations. I get your point: Satan is the accuser of the brethren. This is the very picture of Vista Badmin.

An examination of II Timothy 3:1-5 suggests that from such we should turn away. The Apostle Paul said to mark such persons.

Repentance is heartily recommended, but not unlike the Israelites of old, it is certain that the appeal will fall on very deaf ears and is a waste of the conservation of electrons.

Questeruk said...

Yes. Certainly Christians should not be liars. But I do feel we need to be very careful about accusing anyone of not being a Christian, be it Vistaadmin or Mother Teresa.

However I do wonder why it is thought such a terrible thing to be in the second resurrection, especially if referring to someone who appears to have led a ‘good’ life.

What is so bad about the 2nd resurrection? For example the terrorists that caused the 9/11 destruction of thousands in New York must have been sincere, and dedicated to their beliefs. They willingly sacrificed themselves for what they believed was a just cause, which would give them a great reward.

In the resurrection I don’t see it as unfair for them to be in the ‘2nd resurrection’, as the 2nd resurrection gives them the chance to know whatever the truth is, and to receive the opportunity of eternal life, not only for them to change, but also for them to know what it is they are accepting.

Likewise, here am I, trying to live the way I believe I should – not killing or hating people – trying to love my neighbour and to love God, and keeping the laws of God as I understand them. Now if in reality I have got all this wrong, I fully would appreciate the second resurrection – for two reasons – firstly because then God is not rejecting me for doing what He considers wrong, but I didn’t realise was wrong, and secondly God is still honouring my free will, to accept or reject what it is that God actually offers.

After all, if I found that I was wrong, and the creator was actually an evil god, I would appreciate the option not to follow such a god – I would not be happy to find I had eternal life anyway, under an evil god.

Unknown said...

>>Note that Vista Badmin said he believes he is Santa Claus. We know that to be a lie. He is lying.<<

Vista Badmin may have said "he BELIEVES he is Santa Claus," but I said:"And I CONSIDER myself to be Santa Claus. Does that make me Santa?" If you don't understand the difference between believe and consider, then I know of no words to help you understand.

>>Furthermore, he made it clear that though he believes we should honor Herbert Armstrong, he calls Herbert Armstrong's ministers hirelings.<<

When and where did I say that people should honour HWA? I said that HWA has been reviled and blamed for almost all of the tragedies that have befallen former WCG members.

HWA never had any ministers! WCG's former ministers were either ordained by God or were planted in the church by Satan to disturb the peace of the flock. Sadly, events have demonstrated that the vast majority of them were ministers of Satan, who fed themselves while the flock died of spiritual and sometimes physical starvation.

The ministers who failed to speak out against the spiritual poison Joe Tkach was feeding the flock, or took a bribe, in the form of a financial package, to betrayed God's people are described by Jesus as hirelings.

All of those hirelings who are still alive, are either employed in one of the heretical churches in cog-land or have started their own church, with money as the primary motive.

Tom

Anonymous said...

Questeruk said :

What is so bad about the 2nd resurrection? For example the terrorists that caused the 9/11 destruction of thousands in New York must have been sincere, and dedicated to their beliefs. They willingly sacrificed themselves for what they believed was a just cause, which would give them a great reward.

In the resurrection I don’t see it as unfair for them to be in the "2nd resurrection" as the 2nd resurrection gives them the chance to know whatever the truth is, and to receive the opportunity of eternal life . . .


Well, actually, nothing is so bad about it -- if it were true. But you are basing your beliefs upon a book that barely made it into the Catholic canon -- the canon we now have. And you are also staking your belief on the idea that there is ANY resurrection, let alone a "second" one. And third of all, the vast majority of Christian thought says there is only one resurrection. You get one shot at "eternal" life and that's that.

Personally I would tend to believe that VistaAdmin really is Santa Claus before I would believe in the Book of Rev scenario. Jesus Christ, as far as we know (if he indeed ever existed) never wrote down a single single sentence for posterity. Why should anyone believe that he, all of a sudden, wrote an entire book for us once he returned to some heavenly realm? Did he need to be debriefed by the Father first, or what? :-)

Questeruk said...

If there is no resurrection, then that is very sad, but there is not a thing that I or any other human being can do about it. It also makes the mystery of life even more mysterious.

If there ‘is only one resurrection… one shot at “eternal” life and that’s that.’ Then it’s very sad for the vast majority of humanity, who never had a chance to make use of this ‘one shot’, because they weren’t in the right place at the right time, and didn’t happen to be Christian, or maybe not the right brand of Christian.

But if there is a ‘second resurrection’ – then all humanity gets an equal opportunity. God has treated all humanity even handed.

Which is the most just and equitable? Is God just and equitable?

(Perhaps you should also check there really is a Santa Claus, before you ascribe this role to Vista Admin).

Anonymous said...

said :

But if there is a ‘second resurrection’ – then all humanity gets an equal opportunity. God has treated all humanity even handed.

Well, as with that Hertz Rental commerical, not exactly.

Your basic Armstrongological theology keeps you coming back to improbabl scenarios, like this second rez doctrine. Which means your God is NOT even handed. Because I assume you want to be in the first rez? :-)

Once again, I personally don't believe in any of this Armstrongology, or even convential Christianity. And my opine is just as good as any of those propornets are, who are reading out of a set of books from a long dead language (and have been killing each other for centuries for so reading).

Anonymous said...

"...the vast majority of Christian thought says there is only one resurrection. You get one shot at "eternal" life and that's that."


thankfully, truth does not depend on consensus, at times it exists in spite of consensus:-)

Questeruk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Questeruk said...

Even handed enough. Once you are several million years down the line, a thousand or so years doesn't make a lot of difference, compared with eternity.

        AMERICAN KABUKI said...

Mother Theresa is a strange bird. And yet she says, she did not find God in it. One could spend weeks analyzing the Catholic psyche.

Of the two, I'd say Diana lived a more "human" life. The fact that the English monarchy ignored her death at first, leads to a remarkable bit of suspicion. At least Kennedy's killers went through the motions of grief.

In a remarkable bit of tangential thinking VISTADMIN writes:

HWA never had any ministers! WCG's former ministers were either ordained by God or were planted in the church by Satan to disturb the peace of the flock.


We're to assume the ones that did what you wanted were the ones ordained by God?

Its remarkable how ministers are preaching for God until they are working for Satan! How about none of the above?


Sadly, events have demonstrated that the vast majority of them were ministers of Satan, who fed themselves while the flock died of spiritual and sometimes physical starvation.

So who didn't physically eat?


The ministers who failed to speak out against the spiritual poison Joe Tkach was feeding the flock, or took a bribe, in the form of a financial package, to betrayed God's people are described by Jesus as hirelings.



That's pretty much all of them that disagreed then. The UCG ministers managed to get themselves a decent severance package on the way out, but stayed long enough to collect it.

Rod Meredith stayed around just long enough to get WCG errors and ommissions insurance to pay off his million dollar liable case brought by Mrs McNair. But once that was paid, he was outta there!

They're all such a remarkably brave and courageous lot of men! The cost of loyalty in this age is ones mortgage (or pension).

I'll go puke now.

Unknown said...

>>The UCG ministers managed to get themselves a decent severance package on the way out, but stayed long enough to collect it.

Rod Meredith stayed around just long enough to get WCG errors and ommissions insurance to pay off his million dollar liable case brought by Mrs McNair. But once that was paid, he was outta there!

They're all such a remarkably brave and courageous lot of men! The cost of loyalty in this age is ones mortgage (or pension).<<

****************************************

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Anyone calling himself a minister, who put financial considerations before the welfare of God people is a despicable hireling.

I would hate to be in their position in the day of judgement, for they will receive a punishment worse than death.

Anonymous said...

Dear Santa,

Hi, it's me! I didn't know you were in the Church! When did you come into the truth? Are you baptized? Are you a minister? I think it would be so cool to be a minister, but I can't 'cuz I'm a girl, but maybe I can be a deaconess someday.

I am 8 years old, and I go to LCG. I hope that's okay with you, I know you don't really like Mr. Meredith, but my daddy Libro says he's just a man, so maybe I'm on your good list? I hope so.

Anyway, this Feast I would like a pony and a puppy and a Herbert W Armstrong action figure and a Playstation 3 and an electric guitar and a Roderick C. Meredith action figure and one of those new Furbys with real feelings and a little sister and a Douglas Winnail action figure and... well, maybe not the Dr. Winnail action figure, I always fall asleep during his sermons. (is that bad?)

Oh, and can I have a bikini? I know Mr. Meredith says we can't wear a bikini at the Feast anymore, but I would sooo love to have one, 'cuz I think I look funny in a one-piece. Bring my Daddy a Speedo too, becuz it'll make his face turn all red when Mommy asks him to wear it. ;-) I would ask for a Tickle Me Elmo Extreme TMX too, but Mommy hates Elmo.

And could I maybe meet the boy I'll marry someday? I know Mr. Meredith used to say Jesus will come back in 2018 and then I'll never get to grow up and get married and be a mommy, but Mr. Meredith hasn't said that in at least a year, so maybe he's got Jesus to change His mind. But even if He does come in 10 years, can I at least have a boyfriend when I get old enough? I promise I won't kiss him unless he proposes, and even then just a little bit.

Oh, and can I ask for love, joy and peace in all the world this Feast? I'd ask for love, joy and peace in God's Church too, but that might be too much for even you to do.

I'm so excited! It's so cool that you're in the Church now, so you can give presents to all the girls and boys who keep God's Holy Days. I love you, Santa!

Love, your friend,
Li'l Libretta

PS -- I can't remember the address where we're staying for the Feast, but you have the internet, so your elves can look it up.

PPSS -- Don't let those mean people make fun of you just becuz you like Vista, Santa. Daddy says Vista is cool, even though it won't run all the programs he has to use at work and he has to run XP in a special window just so he can get his work done.

PPPSSS -- My daddy says he knows some ministers who got fired from Worldwide but wouldn't sign the papers to get the money. He says signing the papers meant you couldn't say anything bad about Worldwide, even if it was the truth, so the ministers wouldn't sign it and they didn't get the money. Isn't that cool? If I was a minister, I wouldn't take the money either. Your friend, Libretta.

Questeruk said...

Libro 66

Great!!

I think this must rate very high in 'classics' of comments.

Anonymous said...

In the long dark night of nutty comments on this thread, Libro 66 shines forth like a beacon of good humor. Inspired!

Anonymous said...

Anon. said :

Thankfully, truth does not depend on consensus, at times it exists in spite of consensus:-)

Well, according to Armstrongology, those "called out" ones only get one shot too. It's just that they get their shot now. And they better not screw it up, cuz they ain't gonna be no second rez (or second chance) for them!

Frankly, whether it's Armstrongology, or traditional Christianity, it makes no difference. Religion is built upon superstitions, which are based upon a set of ancient books that nobody can read in the original anyway.

So, whether your hold to a fallacious minority position, or a fallacious majority position, none of it matters at the end of the day. It's all just one big fallacy.

        AMERICAN KABUKI said...

vistaadmin writes:
Anyone calling himself a minister, who put financial considerations before the welfare of God people is a despicable hireling.



Amazing! You summed up the essence of HWA and Armstrongism! Bravo Vista Admin! Do you really think changing one doctrine changed anything about Armstrongism? Its a system of control as much as it is a set of beliefs.

But I betcha you're still hung up on his doctrines!

And I betcha you'll condemn a person in the judgement day before you'd eat a lobster or let you kid play basketball on Saturday!

There's a scene in the HBO TV series Big Love, where the bratty little LDS Mormon girl turns to the FLDS father and says "are you truly happy in your apostasy?"

Conversing with you is a bit like that.

Unknown said...

BB>>But I betcha you're still hung up on his doctrines!<<

What were his doctrines? Unless I know what they were, I can't say whether I am hang up on them or not.

Anonymous said...

Mother Theresa is a strange bird. And yet she says, she did not find God in it.

No, she doesn't.

One could spend weeks analyzing the Catholic psyche.

Only "weeks."

And is there really a single "Catholic psyche."?

Of the two, I'd say Diana lived a more "human" life.

True, at least in the sense of a more ordinary sort of life, the sort most of us would find fun or exciting. And yet she had a pretty sucky life, all in all, and an unhappy death. I find Mother Teresa's spiritual yearnings and emptiness far more interesting than the shallow celebrity life of Diana, Princess of Wales.

As for the so-called "second resurrecton" (a term that appears nowhere in scripture), well, all I can say is it's awfully thoughtful of God to create all these people to serve as nothing more in this life than background noise and furniture for faithful Armstrongians in this life -- their lives today are pretty pointless, all in all, since they won't get their chance for salvation until the spiritual elite qualify for the Kingdom. But hey, if they didn't exist, there wouldn't be anyone to sell Armstrongians food and booze and toys during the Feast of Tabernacles, and there wouldn't be anyone to operate hospitals and restaurants for Armstrongians on the Sabbath. In short, God created non-Armstrongians so there could be a world for Armstrongians to come out of. But other than that, there's really no value in their lives today, since they will have to wait until the second resurrection to get their chance. So they can just live it up today, since God won't judge them for anything they do in this life -- he'll only judge them for what they do during their "do-over" 100-year White Throne Judgment period.

And since God isn't judging any non-Armstrongians today, and Jesus commands, "Judge not lest ye be judged," that means all Armstrongians must stop writing articles bitching and moaning about all the sins and immorality in the world today. That "warning message to Israel" is in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the second resurrection, and Herbert Armstrong's followers must cease and desist immediately all of their attempts to warn the Lost Ten Tribes about their imminent invasion by the Assyrians, er, Germans. God doesn't hold non-Armstrongians accountable for their sins in this life, only the next life, so there won't be any divine punishment of the unconverted. It just wouldn't be fair of God to whack people for doing bad things when they never knew better.

Anonymous said...

This on Mother Teresa is well worth reading, I think:

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2007/09/hans-urs-von-balthasar-and-mother_24.html

Unknown said...

the British Royal family is the foremost and most sophisticated of all the Royals.

There is a conspiracy, but it wasn't to kill Diana. The conspiracy was to fake the death of Diana. Then, with a master stroke, they started the paparazzi story.

The truth is clear if one follows the inconsistencies. Diana was pregnant. The Royals couldn't take the embarrassment of a muslim step child. Charles loved Diana but actually was in love with Camilla.

Charles loves his sons, and he wouldn't harm them. Solution, fake the deaths, and everybody gets what they want.

Charles gets his family and the woman he loves, the boys get their rightful inheritance and Diana gets her freedom and a new love. And, lastly, the public gets a martyr.

Pretty neat, and with no need to cover-up a messy murder!

Anonymous said...

"... and a Douglas Winnail action figure and..."

That made me spew beer all over the keyboard. Are you the same entity who wrote the Gay COG comment on the other thread?

Paul

carl said...

Hello again Swen,
I'm still laughing about that one!
I have to say its better than the supermarket!
Call me next week when you're home!
helen

Anonymous said...

Jordan said :

God created non-Armstrongians so there could be a world for Armstrongians to come out of. But other than that, there's really no value in their lives today, since they will have to wait until the second resurrection to get their chance.

A very interesting take on yet another major contradiction of Armstrongism!

. . . bitching and moaning about all the sins and immorality in the world today. That "warning message to Israel" is in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the second resurrection . . .

Well, what would be left for them to do then? What "work" would there be for them to perform? And what would people like David "Bent" Ariel do? Come home and open a hardware store?

But I guess the Herbster, like most of the rest of his converts, never thought thru or beyond all this. And since they all knew that Jesus was returning in 1975, there was no need to do so. The only problem is, when Jesus didn't show up on time, all the spin and back peddling started.

And the Spin Meisters are still at it to this very day. It should be obvious to any rational person why the Armstrong movement is just a fragmented & feckless remnant of its former self.

        AMERICAN KABUKI said...

I Bamboo_bends said...

....I'd say Diana lived a more "human" life.


I forgot when I wrote that, that Armstrongists would interpret a "human life" in a pejorative sense.

I meant it as a compliment. As in a human's highest calling. She's a fine example of a human being rising above circumstances. While her private life was a mess (and what human life isn't torn with one disaster or another?) She finds herself anew in public life.

She had a face made for cameras, and a wonderful smile. Yet her husband couldn't handle living in the shadow of her popularity. Charles abandons her for a horse-faced woman he apparently imprinted on early on in his male development. No camera will drift from Charles to Camilla, that is now sure. Such narcissism.

When the crown tried to shut Diana up, she visited the sick, AIDS victims, land mine sufferers.

Was she murdered? I think its likely. They never expected the public reaction to her death. As to who did it? I don't think we need to know, those who did it have live with her being immortalized for all history as the beauty who never grew old, idolized by heirs to the throne that adore their mother. And no jail cell could more more torment than that.

Anonymous said...

I find it amazing how people read what the media says and they think it is all gospel. People can't see the forest for the trees. They can't think and form their own opinions from observation. The media tells us that Charles abandoned Diana for a "horse faced" woman like Camilla and stupid people believe it. Just because the media claims that Diana said that she loved Charles stupid people believe and accept it without thinking. If a woman as good looking as Diana was truly in love with Charles she never would have lost him to a woman who had less to offer. Clearly Camilla treated Charles with love and respect that Diana never did and that is why he drifted away from Diana to Camilla after his marriage. I saw film footage of Charles and Diana when they were single and she clearly was never in love with him in any shape or form. Once when he kissed her hand in public she laughed at him like he was a silly old fart. And since he was twice her age, why would she be in love with him? She was in love with what his position in life would offer her, not with him at all. She was a spoiled brat rich kid, daughter of the earl of Spencer or whatever his title was. I saw the photos of her and her siblings in books, where they all got their own car for Christmas. I see a rich little snot when I look at the photos of her in her youth. The Lady Di myth doesn't impress me at all. Sure she was young, sure she was beautiful, but that didn't make her a good wife or a person that a man would fall in love with.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe the fantasy worlds some people live in. They were't there. They don't have proof of any of the circumstances and yet they make incredible statements. Like saying that Charles would have Diana killed so that he could have Camilla. He already had Camilla, he didn't need to marry her. In this day and age you can have a relationship without marrying the person. I honestly don't believe that Charles who loved his sons would do something so horribly cruel to them as have their mother killed just for some petty personal selfish reason. And I don't think that the Royal Family is so petty that they couldn't handle having a half muslim relation in their family tree. Resorting to murder for such a petty reason is ridiculous.