Sunday, 27 April 2008

The Wiener Effect

It's been a rare month for AW, with visits already hitting a 12 month high days before the end of April. This month had the highest single day's traffic on - wait for it - the seventeenth!

I'd like to thank Ronald Weinland for his assistance. Without his warbling loon-call it'd have been a much more modest affair. In fact, as you can see from the graph*, "the Wiener effect" has been driving traffic up for several months.

But bad news Ronald, the Google searches for your name are dropping away. To put it kindly, you're rapidly becoming last week's fish chowder. Big buildup, huge expectations, and all we get is a little tap-dancing on the hot coals of bitter reality.

Yes Ron, I know my metaphors are mixed, but not nearly as mixed as the feelings of the good people who got caught up - wallets and hearts - in your lurid, ego-driven fantasies.

So is Ronniekins now doing the right thing? Even a little "ooops!" maybe?

Over on the Shadows blog there's a transcript taken from Witness W's latest oratorically-challenged preachment. Here's an excerpt:

"I'll discuss these things later on, again, we realize maybe some will have that opportunity, but I do want to be clear here that because of this last Sabbath, God has made it abundantly clear, and it's also posted on the site, I wanna clear some of this up.

"I've talked about the 45 days and the 90 days, that was done on the James Whale show, primarily to give an idea here on the general timing of events
for his sake and the listening audience. We see how quickly he got onto that one, I'm joking, he didn't, he never could get it, toward the very end I think he finally got it, you know, when I was saying 45 to 90 days. I want to make it real clear. Nothing will happen specifically about the second trumpet obviously until after Pentecost...

"So we are going to have the opportunity to get together again on Pentecost, and we are planning that, so again, I can't plan certain things until I know. What happened last Sabbath, I didn't know what the 17th was going to bring fully, by any measure, but uh, it is very clear that we will not have anything happen on a massive scale to prevent us from coming together on Pentecost. So all the Elders in all the areas that set up locations, we're going to same locations again as a whole, so I'd like to ask all the elders to please make plans accordingly, and to rent the facilities as necessary because that is a Sabbath, and High Day the following day on Sunday, so that gives us another opportunity to do like we did last weekend. So we are going to have that opportunity again...
We are going to have the opportunity to come together again on Pentecost. So, okayyyy."

So okayyyy? Everybody back to orange alert, we'll do it all again at Pentecost!

There's an old adage: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

* Graph updated since original upload

101 comments:

Weinland Watch said...

Don't forget to contrast that quote with his words (of which I have an embedded inline clip) from the "Three More Weeks" sermon on March 29.

Full details here.

Bamboo_bends said...

Maybe he needs a Homeland security color coded threat monitor?

Lussenheide said...

Greetings Friends Around The World!...

Ambassdor Watch started as if "a seed from the proverbial mustard plant" and has multiplied rapidly...receiving internet hits at a rate of OVER THIRTY PERCENT COMPOUNDED each year of existence!

The SIZE and SCOPE of this great BLOG has reached into EVERY CORNER OF THE GLOBE !, with web hits from over ONE HUNDRED COUNTRIES AND COUNTING!

Lives have been touched, TRUTH REVEALED! YET... some of you have WITHELD and DO NOT POST REGULARLY!

Dear Frieds, realize that frequent and committed posting is what keeps the great work of this blog going out IN STRENGTH AND POWER!

So I hereby beseech you, by my authority vested to me, by me, to POST, and POST AGAIN! Im not just asking for regular posts, BUT POSTS and POSTS that go beyond POSTS. This is in addition to your special offering Posts as well.

Dig deep and sacrafice by posting more than ever at this critical and crucial time in Ambassador Watch's history. Do not be as a LAODICEAN POSTER and therefore condemning yourself to ETERNAL GOOGLE INTERNET HELL.

IN LUV,

Bill Lussenheide, Menifee, CA USA

J said...

Lussenheide,

I do not believe in Google Hell. The greek root of the word "Google" is Goog. That comes from the word "Goo". Therefore, Google Hell is actually a large vat of goo.

That is the true fate of laodicean posters. Though I appreciate your end time warning.

Weinland Watch said...

Nononononono you're BOTH wrong; the "second death" for those who don't answer THIS GREAT AND MIGHTY CALL, is that those WHO WOULD NOT BLASPHEME will be THROWN IN TO THE ETERNAL ABYSS; they will NOT be archived on "The Internet Wayback Machine".

That, dear friends, is ETERNAL DEATH!

mel said...

A strange and sad thing about those in ronnie's world is that there will actually be people DISAPPOINTED at ron's failure to call forth great destruction in which large numbers of people die horrible deaths and rivers of blood flow.

Hopefully there will be a great "thunder" of the stomping as members vote with their feet and leave his congregations.

And thanks Gavin, Shadows, WW, Stan and others for not letting these cultmeisters operate without scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

Gavin wrongly said:

"There's an old adage: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

However, not to worry. The King of Manassa, Decider of all things and Commander Guy has rightly discerned the original text.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

We have to pick one. For the King of Manassa has also counciled us to realize that in life...

"He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road."

Cogswoggle me once..shame on....:)

Corky said...

From all the doomsayers America is being punished by God with terrorism, hurricanes, climate change (the global warming "myth") war etc. etc. Why? Because of America allowing gays to live and abortion!

That's right, we tolerate gays, lesbians, tranvestites, abortion, smut, porn, drinking, gambling, smoking etc. So, God is punishing us and hopes we repent!

But, wait! Who is it that preaches hate and intolerance? Separates families and friends? Causes racial, religious, sexual hatred? Who preaches "them and us"?

Maybe God is punishing America because good and decent people tolerate churches to exist!

Byker Bob said...

Corky,

That would depend on the fruits of the individual church group. Obviously when you have an organization such as the "God Hates Fags" group, protesting at peoples' funerals, and spreading hatred, the world would be much better off if such a group were to fall off the face of the earth.

The Bible seems to indicate that homosexuality is a sin, or abomination, just as stealing, killing, lying, committing adultery, and the other sins. I believe the enlightened guiding principle which a sincere Christian takes is "hate the sin, love the sinner".

I heard an interesting statistic on Christian radio last week. A speaker stated that only about 10% of all Christians act or react any differently to given situations than do people of the world.

The basic philosophy which was taught by Jesus Christ was totally revolutionary in its day. If you read what He said during His "Sermon on the Mount", it would be very difficult to envision the world becoming worse if everyone followed Jesus' teaching.

The problem is not with Jesus. The problem is with some of the man-made organizations which claim to follow Him. Wheat and chaff. By their fruits will you know them. If that would be your criteria for getting rid of some of the church groups, it would be difficult to disagree.

BB

Weinland Watch said...

All right so here's a question guaranteed to tie the Xtians up in knots: You (by "you" I mean the general "you" not you in particular Bob) go on and on and on and on and on and on and on about "the Old Covenant is dead" the "the Old Testament was done away with" "The sermon on the mount said so", yadda yadda yadda yadda.

So explain to me WHY, if "the Old Covenant is dead", and you've thrown out the sabbatarianism, the dietary laws, the seven annual holy days, and all the rest of it because "the Old Covenant is dead"---why isn't the "abomination for men/women to lie with men/women" part dead too?

It's cherry-picking. And it SUCKS. "Oh the Old Covenant is dead isn't it great we're all saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaved by Jeeeeeeebus who DIIIIIIIIIED for our SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNS---Oh but wait, this part still stands. And that part. And don't forget this part over here!"

Oh, wait.

You people can't eat your cake and have it too. Either the Old Testament was done away with by the New Testament, or it wasn't. Either way you slice it, both narratives are mutually incompatible. Even though religions have been trying to reconcile them both for two thousand years.

Tired Skeptic said...

You people can't eat your cake and have it too. Either the Old Testament was done away with by the New Testament, or it wasn't. Either way you slice it, both narratives are mutually incompatible. Even though religions have been trying to reconcile them both for two thousand years.

Of course you can have it both ways. Armstrongism did it for decades.

It's called "Old Testament Christianity".

Lussenheide said...

Weinland Watch and all:

I prefer Testament 1.0 and Testament 2.0 as opposed to "Old Testament/New Testament".

The new testament writings are quite clear about "porneia", fornication, adultery, homosexuality etc. Purity in sexual conduct is self evident in both new and old covenants.

Of the 613 laws of the torah, only about 90 or so could even be remotely practiced today simply because of time, geography and circumstance.

Jeremiah spoke about Testament 2.0 as being written in our heart, not done away with. However, this requires Gods spirit, and wisdom to apply. The 10 commandments were not done away with in Testament 2.0 either. But they must be applied in the spirit and intent.

Testament 2.0 speaks about the "unclean bird" in Revelation, it speaks of Holy days, it speaks of the commandments of God.

Zechariah speaks of the Feast of Tabernacles in the future tense AFTER the return of Jesus Christ, obviously occuring during Testament 2.0.

Testament 2.0 is not about abolishing Testament 1.0 but making it into a living spiritual dynamic thought process. Even circumcision still exists, however it is now circumcision of the heart! It is also about WHY you do things as opposed to just WHAT things you do.

I will put this into analogy. Adam before God breathed his life into him was a perfect clay figure. He simply was not living. The clay tablets of Testament 1.0 were perfect too, but not living. By breathing the Spirit of God into the clay tablets, you now have something complete, living and dynamic.

Body Armor now on and readied for all responses! ;-)

Luv, Peace and Eternal Tranquility !

Bill Lussenheide, Menifee, CA USA

Anonymous said...

In the COGs the numebers need to be raised a little:

Fool me 8 or 9 times, shame on you; fool me ten or twenty times, shame on me.

Anonymous said...

So explain to me WHY, if "the Old Covenant is dead", and you've thrown out the sabbatarianism, the dietary laws, the seven annual holy days, and all the rest of it because "the Old Covenant is dead"---why isn't the "abomination for men/women to lie with men/women" part dead too?


Watcher,

That is the question that you will read in all the latest anti-God books these days. The answer is simple.

The Sabbath, dietary laws, and laws about sexual morality have certainly NOT been done away with, at least not by God.

It is the Catholic and Protestant churches that pick and choose. They reject and twist the laws of God that they hate, just like the homosexuals reject and twist whatever laws of God they hate.

DennisDiehl said...

Can't Pick n Choose Annon noted:

"The Sabbath, dietary laws, and laws about sexual morality have certainly NOT been done away with, at least not by God."

Darn right!

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he MUST pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he MUST marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will NEVER be allowed to divorce"

God is good! That will teach the SOB. Rapists have to marry the victim and his punishment is that he can NEVER divorce her. One can see how well God thought this one through. Makes perfect sense!

and....

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

'but but Priest Judge...he had his hand over my mouth....but but....thunk..."

God is good!

I love this law of God

"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)"

This it the origin of the Daughter's Prayer.

"Oh Lord, I thank thee that mine father was not thine Priest."

and who can forget..

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

And we get upset because we think Islam kills those that won't convert. Pffffft....we have God's laws to fight that!

Yes, no more picking and choosing or not obeying the ones we hate!

God is love....ok, well not if you are a woman. Love God or we'll kill you. In the NT, it seems to be Love Jesus or burn forever in hell, eternally or quickly--you're choice

DennisDiehl said...

PS

If you wade through God's law books in the OT, you'll see that God personally slew a minimum of one million human beings for infractions.

In Numbers 25:4-9 we see that God not only slew 24,000 (always such nice round numbers) Israelites for Baal worship but then.."Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Lord."

Probably some kind of sweet smell for the Lord or something.

Add to this dashing children against the walls and ravishing all the women and what can we say....it's pure love, forgiveness and compassion.

Maybe Jesus left his father and came to earth to get away from the Old Man? That would explain why he taught the opposite in the NT

Anonymous said...

The Wiener Effect

Ask just about any evangelical pastor today whether incest is immoral from a biblical standpoint except Herbert W. Armstrong, and he will surely insist that it is — thereby enlisting the moral standards of the Old Testament, even if he proclaims elsewhere that they are repealed and invalid. Or ask him about homosexuality. When Paul delivered an apostolic judgment as to the immorality of homosexuality he specifically reiterated the Old Testament standard (Rom. 1:26-27, 32, from Lev. 18:22 and 20:13).

Anonymous said...

Dennis, you've unwittingly explained why the written Torah of Moses cannot be understood without its other, the oral, component.

For starters, the written Torah's maximum penalties and blunt statements must be approached via God's merciful characteristics, because: apart from compassion and mercy, no amount of justice and righteousness can be just or right. And if a person takes the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" requirement at face value, not realizing that this is an idiomatic expression for equitable monetary compensation of damages established in court, one cannot but conclude that God is far too grumpy for the good of mankind.

Israel's courts did not rule apart from the oral law, without which Biblical Law is all but impossible to justly apply.

DennisDiehl said...

Not often realized, but homosexuality was the PUNISHMENT from God upon men and women who changed the glory of God into images of humans, animals and birds and reptiles.

God was not punishing homosexuals in Romans 1:21. He turned people over to it as punishement for worshipping creatures more than the creator.

An oft overlooked explanation. Ranks right up there with Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed due to a whole towns of gay men.

It was a story about hospitality and teaching strangers not to bother the clan by threatening to rape like women.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah usually stops short of Lot's offer to toss his virgin daughters out to the boys but not his guests. Of course, why a whole town of gay men would want a virgin woman is not explained.

Maybe Lot knew it would make them scatter like throwing a smoke bomb into an unruly crowd of gays.
:)

Paul had to be a repressed non-practicing gay or tormented by unrequited love. He had all the symptoms. It's just easier to say, "It's better to be unmarried like me," than "No one wants to marry me."

Weinland Watch said...

"The oral law"?

Wait, so right along with the non-canonical extra-biblical books there is now an "oral history" of the canonical christian bible?

And where, pray tell, is the two-thousand-year-old eyewitness d00d who is proclaiming this "oral law"?

DennisDiehl said...

Annon said:

"Israel's courts did not rule apart from the oral law, without which Biblical Law is all but impossible to justly apply."

I'm just reading the OT accounts of what DID happen and not some just Israeli court system.

I'm sure the oral law evolved because the written law was so stupid and ignorant and the examples of it's application in the OT were rather jarring.

The fact is, the written law is portrayed as God's. God is portrayed then as a psychopath that the oral law hopes to tame.

I wonder if Israelite Priests snorted and repressed peels of laughter in cases of sexual offenses, when they were asked to comment on oral law...

Reminds me of a seminar I attended on a WCG refresher where someone felt an entire two hour session was to be dedicated to what are proper sexual practices for "God's people."

I'd say the ministers opening line, which he did not mean to say, but perhaps it's too much in print. After we picked ourselves up off the floor, the minister over the Paris, France church waved his hands saying, "if you comment on this..you will loose the entire French church!" Well after we got up off the floor for a second time...we all left and cancelled the session...

You don't know how close we all came to a sermon on "Just What Do You Mean Christian Sex?"
:)

Tired Skeptic said...

Beg pardon, but doesn't the Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled mean that a married couple are free to explore without interference from anyone else.

Go ahead and wear that bunny suit if you wish; any position is acceptable; whatever you mutually decide, go for it.

But then, in spite of all claims, the Armstrongist churches don't much obey the Bible and never did except as suited them, including meddling where angels would fear to tread arrogantly and presumptively: Attempting to control everything within a member's marriage in spite of the clear commands attributed to God Himself.

If there is a God [as described in Scripture], all those evil ministers will have to give account -- as will all the false prophets like Weinland.

Anonymous said...

Dennis die Menace,

As for all those young virgins that you pretend to be so concerned about, all sorts of VERY BAD things are happening to them these days as a result of people (including themselves) rejecting God's laws. Nobody today requires those who have sex with them to marry them or pay their father anything. The result is the current epidemic of "single moms" (formerly known as "sluts with bastard children"). Most people who fool around know each other, unless they do it anonymously through a hole in the wall. If the guy was a total creep, the girl's father was allowed to reject him.

God's way had married priests in the OT and married apostles in the NT. God is about family. The Roman Catholic Church has for priests a bunch of homosexual pedophiles who molest boys and want to be called "father." For some reason, some who post at this blog don't seem to have a problem with that.

Dennis die Menace, you are getting too carried away with your hatred of God's ways, and thus you seek to misrepresent what His laws are all about. You try to put them in a bad light. I knew a WCG guy like you who also hated God's laws yet could talk a great talk about "love," but all he ever did was abuse and date-rape girls and then dump them.

Anonymous said...

"Testament 2.0 is not about abolishing Testament 1.0 but making it into a living spiritual dynamic thought process. Even circumcision still exists, however it is now circumcision of the heart!"

Living Spiritual Dynamic Thought Process (LSDTP). I assume this is a doublespeak version of the old "letter versus the spirit of the law."

Bill, either embrace the Law or trash it. You can't straddle this fence- there's no Biblical basis for it.

The Apostate Paul

Anonymous said...

"It is the Catholic and Protestant churches that pick and choose."

Hypocrite! Go blow the dust off your Bible and compare the Law as directed by Gawd Almighty to the few odd-n-ends that HWA culled from the OT. Compare the Law of God to the few commands that you observe.


The Apostate Paul

Anonymous said...

"For some reason, some who post at this blog don't seem to have a problem with that."

Oh, but they do- and show themselves of a higher moral caliber than you, who seems to condone what Jehovah the Psychotic God commanded in reference to innocent girls. You're sick, just like the god you worship.

Satan was right to rebel. He sensed the psychotic madness dripping from the Almighty.


The Apostate Paul

DennisDiehl said...

"Dennis die Menace,

"you are getting too carried away with your hatred of God's ways,"

I don't hate God or God's ways. I may be perplexed over which are God's ways and which are made up guy stuff, but I'm not the only human being who ever noticed what the OT clearly says.

Could you explain the rape rules to me in terms of God? I'm listening. Are they in force in the mind of God and true church Christians?

"and thus you seek to misrepresent what His laws are all about. You try to put them in a bad light."

How is it me that puts a law about the rapist having to marry the victim and never being able to divorce her, putting God's law in a bad light? I just reproduced the text.

Bashing children against the wall in front of mom and then killing mom...explain how I put God in a bad light?


"I knew a WCG guy like you who also hated God's laws yet could talk a great talk about "love," but all he ever did was abuse and date-rape girls and then dump them."

Like me? I"m like this guy? Wow...I can' seem to remember when it was we had lunch together and we got aquainted.

"The result is the current epidemic of "single moms" (formerly known as "sluts with bastard children").

Not unlike the labels Jesus had to live with being born of his mom's fornication, called the Son of Mary and never having an admitted earthly father to relate to or help him grow up. Joseph was a Nativity Prop and disappeared almost before he showed up. No one else in the NT ever heard of him.

I do hope you know where ALL babies come from.

Byker Bob said...

In answer to WW's question, I was going to explain that the Old Covenant was not "done away". It was fulfilled. There is a tremendous difference in that. The OT points the way to Jesus Christ, and lays the groundwork by showing why it was necessary for God to sacrifice His Son for all of humanity.

I believe Bill Luss did a great job of describing how the followers of Jesus live in the spirit. Living in the spirit is far more difficult than simply keeping all of the OT laws, because it is not only physical acts which are involved, but the thoughts which lead to those physical acts as well.

Much has been written about living in the spirit. I don't see how one could live in the spirit and be involved in promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, adultery, or homosexuality. Activities such as that come into the category of "grieving the Holy Spirit", or "quenching" it/Him. You can't maintain closeness to God and have those activities be a regular practice in your life. If unrepented of, and unforgiven, these are sins which we are told will disqualify one from entering the Kingdom.

These are difficult teachings for some. I used to be a horrible mocker of Christians, and was even going to print up some mock bumper stickers that read, "Christians get better Pu--y" Fact is, if you want to follow Jesus Christ, your sex life must be in compliance with His teachings, just like every other aspect of your life. Some may not think it's worth it. It's another area where you have to count the cost.

BB

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Weinland, check out parallels to the "Two by Twos" and William Irvine of early 20th century. Like Weinland, Irvine founded a religious movement which believed itself to be the only true Christians on earth, then developed unusual interpretations of Revelation and his own role, set dates for the end and went to Jerusalem.
The rest of the "overseers" (ministers) left behind decided Irvine had gone off the deep end and excommunicated him from the group he had founded, and thereafter refused to talk about him or their own history. They survive today as the "Two by Two's". There are maybe 40,000 Two by Twos in the U.S. by one estimate, maybe several times that number worldwide. They have no name, no headquarters, no mailing address, no literature, no incorporated status, and no buildings. They meet in members' homes and are governed by travelling "overseers" who travel two by two and live a few weeks at a time in members' homes with no permanent home of their own. The only way you learn of this group's existence is to meet them in person. I myself met some of this group by accident in southern Oregon and visited one of their meetings. They are conservative in dress and ways (women should not cut their hair and should defer to men) and don't believe in having TV, but otherwise don't stand out in appearance. Their beliefs are sort of old-fashioned baptist. No connection to COG roots or beliefs, except for the one true church part and condemnation of all other churches in the world as false. They seriously answer when asked of their history that they were founded by Jesus and that the historical links through the centuries are unimportant to trace being Paul's "vain geneologies". This is the way embarrassment over their founder and history became theologized in practice to the lay members. Some of the members today literally do not know of William Irvine; others do but will not speak of him to you as an outsider. The forlorn Irvine meanwhile, stranded in Jerusalem, spiritualized the interpretation of his dates and to the end of his days bewailed the treachery of his fellow overseers stealing his church from him. He died in Jerusalem and apparently has a few dozen followers in the world after his death to this day. The movement he once led, on the other hand, known today to outsiders as the Two by Twos, is well-rooted and flourishing despite being little known.
Information on William Irvine and the Two by Twos is available on the internet by google search, for example,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_2x2.htm

I doubt Weinland's subordinate ministers and members have the critical mass in either numbers or stamina to remove themselves and then grow independently. Most likely Weinland and enabling family will retain some kind of income stream from a few loyal faithful mailing money for the next few decades to wherever the prophet happens to be in exile. Its one way to fund a retirement, I suppose you could say...

Greg D.

SmilinJackSprat said...

Dennis, on the matter of Biblical rape laws and other seemingly barbaric matters, perhaps you'll think me boorish if I cite internal evidence, but here goes anyway. Please forgive me if I'm restating the obvious part of the time.

We all know King David was enthralled with the Torah (Teachings) of Moses, and devoted his longest Psalm to its genius. His unfeigned love of Torah suggests to me that something must be lacking in the way we study Hebrew Scriptures if we don't find what he so highly praised.

Jesus concurred with David. "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law (Torah) to fail." He also said he hadn't come to destroy, but to fulfill the Torah.

Like Jesus, every serious Jew lives to fulfill the Torah. How then are crude, insensitive rape laws compatible with Jesus' mindset if taken at face value from our English translations? To my mind, they're not. Something is missing.

When reasonable men and women of good intent are scandalized by the laws found in the written Torah -- and both David and Jesus loved every letter of it -- there is no doubt that our versions are incomplete. Either that, or King David and Jesus were oblivious to human kindness and compassion (which is not possible).

Since the Torah of Moses is a Jewish institution, commandeered for Christian Bibles centuries ago when Constantine metamorphosed Christianity into his Roman version, then it stands to reason that to understand it in its true context, one must go behind Constantine to the source -- to the Jew. Jews don't hesitate to go to Christian sources when a Christian perspective is needed.

Since Jews have always had high regard for Torah, and for God as The Compassionate One, then those among them who are learned in Torah should be able to make a case for Jewish Law. A good Orthodox Rabbi should be able to explain how laws concerned with sexual crimes were applied in ancient Israel, and how they are now applied in religious communities. If you do this I think you'll be encouraged, not only on the matter of rape, which obviously requires infinite sensitivity and compassion, but on Jewish Law in general.

SmilinJackSprat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Oh, but they do- and show themselves of a higher moral caliber than you, who seems to condone what Jehovah the Psychotic God commanded in reference to innocent girls. You're sick, just like the god you worship.

Satan was right to rebel. He sensed the psychotic madness dripping from the Almighty.

The Apostate Paul



The Antagonistic State of Paul,

Life is not perfect, and girls are not exactly innocent, and before you know it they are old, and often as screwed up between the legs as they were in the head at the start.

If you honestly consider everything, I think you will see that God's laws were intended for the good of everyone. In the end you will find that turning to Satan is not the answer. He/she/it is just too mean--like a moody woman. If you think God is bad, wait till you see what Satan is like!

I do agree that there are serious problems in the WCG and its splinter groups, but all the problems that I have observed in these groups are the result of someone not obeying God's laws.

Gavin said...

Re the last post - Can we all say "misogynist" together brethren.

Weinland Watch said...

Crap. My off-the-cuff potshot at the evangelicals morphed into being a support structure for classic Armstrongism.

................I feel ill..............

Byker Bob said...

Aggie,

What I've discovered is that almost any poster who has any semblance of Christian beliefs gets lumped in with, or is accused of Armstrongism on most ex-WCG forums and blogs.

For the record, I repudiate Armstrongism, rather vehemently, as a matter of fact. I also repudiate mysogyny, and detest the ignoring of such things as science, archaeology, textual criticism, and other disciplines which would tend to shed light on the errancy or inerrancy of scripture as we know it today.

You don't have to be ignorant or naive to be a Christian, although I admit that we sometimes see examples of wilfull ignorance or myopia amongst them.

Sir Isaac Newton would most certainly be an example of Christian intellect.

BB

Anonymous said...

"If you honestly consider everything, I think you will see that God's laws were intended for the good of everyone."


Even the poor girl who has to marry her rapist?



The Apostate Paul

Anonymous said...

"When reasonable men and women of good intent are scandalized by the laws found in the written Torah -- and both David and Jesus loved every letter of it -- there is no doubt that our versions are incomplete."

Why?


The Apostate Paul

Jordanes said...

So explain to me WHY, if "the Old Covenant is dead", and you've thrown out the sabbatarianism, the dietary laws, the seven annual holy days, and all the rest of it because "the Old Covenant is dead"---why isn't the "abomination for men/women to lie with men/women" part dead too?

Christianity does not maintain that homosexual conduct is sinful because it was proscribed in the Law of Moses, but that it was proscribed in the Law of Moses because it is sinful.

As for laws in Deuteronomy allegedly requiring rape victims to be stoned, or to marry their rapists, there are no such laws. Regardless of what certain modern alleged translations say, the laws in question refer to consensual sex, when a woman, whether betrothed (equivalent to being married) or not yet betrothed, engages in non-marital sex. If she was betrothed, that is married, then she was guilty of adultery, which was subject to the death penalty for both adulterer and adulteress. If she was not betrothed, then she was guilty of fornication, which was not subject to the death penalty – in that case, the trespass had to be remedied by marriage of the offending parties. But Deuteronomy also mentions what was to be done in cases of rape, where the woman screamed and resisted --- in that case, the rapist was put to death, and the victim was held to be guiltless.

Weinland Watch said...

"Christianity does not maintain that homosexual conduct is sinful because it was proscribed in the Law of Moses, but that it was proscribed in the Law of Moses because it is sinful."

Altogether now people: Circular logic.

And I wasn't referring to your comments, Bob, I was referring to the fact that two or three people jumped on my remark and proved (to me at least) that I was still looking at that particular part of the Xtian theology through an Armstrong-coloured lens. In other words, my off-the-cuff remark proved to hit a landmine in my own head, not anybody else's.

Thus my "I feel ill" remark. I still feel ill. I probably should have just left not-well-enough alone. :-(

Jordanes said...

Altogether now people: Circular logic.

I'd be interesting in seeing you try to plot out the syllogism that you claim to be circular.

You don't really think that Christians believe murder and lying and adultery are sins just because the Law of Moses identifies them as such, do you? Now that would be circular reasoning -- but that's not what Christianity teaches. As St. Paul said (Rom. 2:12-14), it is not the Law alone that determines whether or not something is a sin.

Anonymous said...

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

Jordanes,

Thanks for your input. The atheists and self-confessed Satan worshippers who post here had lost their fragile grasp of reality, and were at risk of becoming apoplectic over their wilful misunderstanding of God's good laws.

Alas, the people who pretend to be concerned about some mythical girl and her hypothetical predicament, and use this as their excuse for hating God's good laws, are not being sensible or honest at all.

THE REAL REASON THAT SOME PEOPLE HATE GOD'S GOOD LAWS IS THAT THEY WANT TO DO EVIL TO OTHER PEOPLE. For example, these hypocrites don't want anyone to have to marry the girls that they have sex with, not even when they get them pregnant. They actually want to be free from God's laws so that they can misuse and abuse girls in a cruel and shameful fashion. They are, in fact, the real misogynists. They need to throw away their pornographic magazines and videos, and stop pretending that they are "noble" and concerned. If they really cared about anyone, they would love God's good laws that show how to treat people properly.

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

mel said...

YIKES!!!

Are there really "self-confessed Satan worshippers who post here"?

I must have missed 'em.
Point me to the posts so I can show the missus!

SmilinJackSprat said...

Apostate Paul wrote, quoting my earlier post, "'When reasonable men and women of good intent are scandalized by the laws found in the written Torah -- and both David and Jesus loved every letter of it -- there is no doubt that our versions are incomplete.'

Why?"

It's a stunning question.

One answer might be provided, at least partially, by way of American jurisprudence. Our laws, both state and federal, are derived from our Constitution.

From the start, immense latitude was given to the states for making their own laws. No less is the necessary latitude given to the federal government. Society changes, new innovations appear, the Constitution must be reinterpreted to apply in new situations. For example, the Constitution says nothing of speed limits, or turning right on a red light. Nonetheless, those laws, which vary from state to state, are all considered Constitutional.

With reference to the Torah of Moses, which can roughly be viewed as analogous to the American Constitution, it is taught that an oral complement to the written document has existed from the beginning. As time passed, court precedents became another source of justice and interpretation. The Torah is written in the vernacular of Moses' time, and must be carefully manipulated, within its original intents, to maintain its relevance in changing times.

The Rabbis insist that apart from the Oral Torah it is utterly impossible to understand or apply the written Torah. So for the Christian or Jew who simply picks up a Bible and reads it at face value, much can be learned; but there are so many loose ends, idiomatic expressions and open-ended statements in the bare text that wrong impressions and confusion are inevitable. Proper understanding must include the Oral Torah as well as legal precedent and common sense.

On its surface the Torah seems straightforward, almost simplistic. But when a serious student begins to probe its depths, he or she finds it oceans deep, yet more than willing to reveal its mysteries to all who are willing to learn -- which learning must, of absolute necessity, include far more than what one finds on the pages of the Bible alone.

Anonymous said...

Friendly advice for:

Dennis die Menace,
Wineland Ogler,
Apoplectic Paul,
Frustrated old Gavin, etc.

Stick to finding fault with guys like Ronald Weinland. That is something that you can do. You might even help someone by warning about that false prophet.

Do not try to find fault with the Bible. That is something that you obviously cannot do. On this thread you have been forced to take some simple little verses from the OT and twist them and lie about them in an outrageous and shameful way to try to make God look bad.

It is to your everlasting shame that after seeing your behavior some people might not know whether to believe incompetent and dishonest people like you or whether to believe that clown Ronald Weinland.

Byker Bob said...

To anonymous 1:02:

The important aspect to these discussions, and our freedom of speech, is that the truth often ultimately surfaces, although freedom of speech sometimes offends.

I had often wondered, since others had brought this up in the past, about the OT "rape" laws. If seen as rape, none of the verses seemed to make any sense at all from a psychological, religious, or secular law standpoint. Further, this interpretation does a tremendous disservice to a loving God.

Over the past several years, whenever these verses were cited, nobody has stepped up to the plate, and properly explained them from a translational and contextual standpoint. Jordanes, whoever he or she is, has been a tremendous blessing to this blog today! And his/her explanation makes perfect sense. In today's laws, we have what is known as "statutory rape". Even though it is consensual, this type of copulation is considered rape. It is so easy to understand that sex outside of marriage, according to the laws given to Moses, even though consensual, would be considered to be rape from a statutory standpoint.

BB

Anonymous said...

" On this thread you have been forced to take some simple little verses from the OT and twist them and lie about them in an outrageous and shameful way to try to make God look bad. "

It's hard to read simple verses any more simply. They say what they say. If they aren't right then which ones are and which aren't?

Anonymous said...

It's hard to read simple verses any more simply. They say what they say. If they aren't right then which ones are and which aren't?

The Bible is right. You are wrong. Apparently, there are some people on this blog who are even simpler than these verses. They must confound the evolutionists, how such simple organisms could have survived.

Those who have misunderstood these verses "over the past several years" will, no doubt (ok, maybe some doubt), want to update their websites, blogs, etc. to correct their grievous error.

Thanks again to Jordanes, since it appears that I too had failed to word the explanation as well as I should have.

Anonymous said...

"There is no prophecy in the OT foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one word in the OT referring to him in any way--not one word. The only way to prove this is to take your Bible, and wherever you find these words; "That it might be fulfilled" and "which was spoken" turn to the OT and find what was written, and you will see that it had not the slightest possible reference to the thing recounted in the NT--not the slightest."
-- Robert Green Ingersol

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov

Anonymous said...

Suppose that we knew that after "inspired" men had finished the Bible, the devil got possession of it, and wrote a few passages; what part of the sacred Scriptures would Christians now pick out as being probably his work?

Which of the following passages would naturally be selected as having been written by the devil

"Love thy neighbor as thyself,"

or

"Kill all the males among the little ones, and kill every woman; but all the women children keep alive for yourselves?

Anonymous said...

Deut 20: 14 "But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the plunder from your enemies that the Lord your God has given you."

"But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him,
keep alive for yourselves."

Numbers 31:18

Enjoy your booty.

"Does any Christian believe that if God were to write a book now, he would uphold the crimes commanded in the Old Testament?

Has Jehovah improved? Has infinite mercy become more merciful? Has infinite wisdom intellectually advanced? Will any one claim that the passages upholding slavery have liberated mankind; that we are indebted for our modern homes to the texts that made polygamy a virtue; or that religious liberty found its soil, its light, and rain in the infamous verse wherein the husband is commanded to stone to death the wife for worshiping an unknown god?" R Ingersoll







Enjoy!

Weinland Watch said...

I think Gavin might want to check one or two of those "anonymous" IP addresses. Sounds like there really has been a "resurrection from the dead" if yannowhatImean.....

Byker Bob said...

It has been said that the purpose of the Old Testament is to depict or point out the need for Jesus Christ. The OT shows that even the most well intentioned attempts at law and ethics will not produce transcendent behavior. For that, a change or transformation of heart is required. That is the ingredient which Jesus Christ added.

When you look at the OT, you also need to realize that humans were used to record what is in it. Human flaws, therefore, are going to be an influence. The only portion which we are told was written by the finger of God was the ten commandments. We can quibble over the effectiveness of biblical sanitation "laws", or the rules regarding "rape", but does anyone have anything against commandments not to steal, lie, murder, covet, commit adultery, etc? Would you seriously want to be the victim of one of these crimes?

BB

Anonymous said...

"The Bible is right. You are wrong."

You don't understand the question. If certain passages offend the sensibility of Christians and so are not to be trusted, then how can you trust any of the passages of the Bible?

How can one take most of the Bible literally- yet dismiss other parts of the Bile when they disagree with what is written? Is the Bible the inspired word of God, or isnt' it? Can the Bible be "partly" inspired?

Wasn't there a musical portion of Hee-Haw called "Pickin' and Grinnin?" I think here, "Pickin' and Choosin" is more apt.


The Apostate Paul

Anonymous said...

"When you look at the OT, you also need to realize that humans were used to record what is in it. Human flaws, therefore, are going to be an influence."

Are you prepared to apply that to the NT as well? If so, where does this leave us in respect to the supposed resurrection of Christ?

The Apostate Paul

Anonymous said...

"With reference to the Torah of Moses, which can roughly be viewed as analogous to the American Constitution..."

No, the two aren't even remotely analogous, for the Constitution is not held as the word of the God who created the entire universe- the Torah is. The Torah recounts God's dealing with men, and his express wishes and commands. If the Torah is a "living, breathing" document, and man's interpretation of what is written changes based on time and circumstance, then it's hard to make the case that this book is inspired by God himself, or at least, that his followers desire to obey him.


Pickin' N Choosin


The Apostate Paul

Anonymous said...

We look through the prism of John 3:16 as generally interpreted by Christians. What if God loves His kosmos so much that every now and again He has to clean it out of all that defiles in order to preserve it? That His 'love' is reserved for those who believe and commit to His program? That, as in nature, there is a vast surplus of 'seed'?

Anonymous said...

"What if God loves His kosmos so much that every now and again He has to clean it out of all that defiles in order to preserve it?"

Then I'd say God was the Great Cosmic Janitor and not so much a Father able to communicate, lead, love and teach and inspire His creation, that He originally pronounced "good."

Anonymous said...

'...Then I'd say God was the Great Cosmic Janitor and not so much a Father able to communicate, lead, love and teach and inspire His creation, that He originally pronounced "good."...@

A Father who never hears from his children who have rejected him will continue to love those wwho are committed to him and his family

Anonymous said...

"A Father who never hears from his children who have rejected him..."


Well, if he doesn't want his chillun to reject him, then perhaps he should put in an appearance, or allow some genuine miracles to take place so that his chillun will know that he exists.
But, he won't- and there is a reason why (he's not real).


The Apostate Paul

Weinland Watch said...

Ah crap. The next time I open my fat yap can somebody just stick my foot in it for me?!

Sorry Gavin. I really didn't mean to bring this on. I really didn't mean to bring this on.

:-(

DennisDiehl said...

Well, if he doesn't want his chillun to reject him, then perhaps he should put in an appearance, or allow some genuine miracles to take place so that his chillun will know that he exists.
But, he won't- and there is a reason why (he's not real).

took the words right out of my keyboard!

DennisDiehl said...

...and stop calling me a prostate. Even Angel's prostate's fall...

Anonymous said...

X X X - SEX - SEX - SEX - X X X

God created humans male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply. See Genesis 1:26-28. God set up some rules to govern all the sex for the overall good of everyone. See Leviticus 18:1-30.

Discussed below are a couple types of WRONG SEX that are EXTREMELY COMMON in the USA today, which I'll call Seduction Sex and Forced Sex.


I. SEDUCTION SEX

Social Responsibility

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17, NIV)

This law would help to protect girls from smooth-talking guys who just want to use them and then abandon them. Too many guys want to have sex with girls, but don't want to behave responsibly. The heading that the translators of the NIV came up with for that particular section of laws was "Social Responsibility." This rule would force guys and girls to behave more responsibly. They would have to get married and settle down together, instead of wandering around and screwing around with everything else in sight. This rule would help take care of the girls and protect them. Otherwise, many guys, after getting what they wanted, would be long gone.

The rule would also help to tie down these loose girls (pun fully intended) so that they don't then go bother other single guys, as they are known to do. The (now married) guys and girls could then raise a family instead of just producing children who will suffer from having irresponsible, absent, biological, so-called "parents."


II. FORCED SEX

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29, NIV)

Often, guys "happen to meet" girls and are attracted to them. Even when the girls want to wait till they are married to have sex, too many guys do not want to behave properly. So, they endlessly pressure the girls, and too often actually force them to have sex. Shortly after date-raping the girls, the guys usually want to wander off and do something else. This rule was intended to make the guys do the right thing. Then, like some stupid Meatloaf, they might be "praying for the end of time" so they can end their time with the (now older) girl. Otherwise, the guys would dump the girls and go find some other girls that they would also want to have sex with. Usually, they learn nothing from their past evil behavior, and will also pressure and even force their new girlfriends to have sex with them too.

In fact, it was the guy who had to marry the girl. Some Meatheads like to twist the verse to say that the girl had to marry the guy. They want to imagine that it is talking about those relatively rare cases where some unknown, serial-rapist monster drags the girl into the bushes. They weep and wail and say that God will force the poor, "innocent girl" (???) to marry Frank N. Stein. Actually, it is talking about the very common, known, date-rapists like themselves. They are the ones who are required to do the right thing and take care of the girl and any children they have. That is probably the real reason that they hate God's laws. The penalty is too much for them.

DennisDiehl said...

"God created humans male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply. See Genesis 1:26-28. God set up some rules to govern all the sex for the overall good of everyone. See Leviticus 18:1-30."

This, of course, is not literally true.

Between 500,000 and 250,000 years ago, H. erectus evolved into H. sapiens. Transitional forms between H. erectus and H. sapiens are referred to as archaic H. sapiens. With the exception of H. sapiens neandertalensis, no additional subspecies are recognized. Indeed, some scientists consider Neanderthal a separate species.

Archaic H. sapiens changed gradually, becoming somewhat larger, more gracile and larger-brained through time.

By 150,000 years ago in Africa and Asia and 28,000 years ago in Europe (see Cro-Magnon man), the transition to H. sapiens was complete, and fully modern humans became the single surviving hominid species.

The Adam and Eve story is mythology and is about the fall of matriarcy and the female principle (along with her wise counselor the Serpent) in worship and the rise of patriarchy and Priestcraft leaving women to have children painfully and say "yes lord" to their superiour husbands.

The laws of Adultery were property laws, not meant to assure romantic love. You don't take the property of other men.

The woman taken "in the very act" (John 8),was at fault even in Jesus time (the story was added to John and is not original to the text). The man was not blamed or "in the very act" doesn't mean what I think it does when caught..ewww. The story was added right in the middle of a blowout over Jesus being born of fornication or adultery. It may have been added later to send the message to "leave my mom alone and she is forgiven anyway."

Marriage was instituted to provide a way to prove paternity and property rights and the severe laws against women (not so much men) who strayed were to insure the proper fear so that their babies were clearly indentifiable as proper heirs to the man whose stuff it was.

One can clearly see in history the evolution of the idea that at first men had no part in the wonder of birth (Goddess and fertility worship) to the realization that they thought they had everything to do with it and the woman was a mere vessel (OT Patriarchy and Paul wrongly stating that the reason women can't speak in church is that women come from men and not men from women. (Just common ribs after all...) Paul was relying on the Adam and Eve story as true and, of course we know that men come from women. Men even start out female until the fetus gets testoterone, which explains the undeveloped nipple thingys on all males...

We're a female template gone nuts.

Annon: There is precious little in the OT meant to protect the woman from all these dastardly single guys. It's about paternity, property rights and inheritance.

Of course we need "rules" for an ordered society and sexual responsibility, however the motive for OT rules was not to keep love alive.

Men, of course, could have multiple wives in the OT and all the greats did.

DennisDiehl said...

PS Leviticus has always been one of the great places in human understanding to look for advice on romance and human sexuality.

Anonymous said...

Annon:

Are you a pre-teen or just make up this stuff?

Anonymous said...

'...Between 500,000 and 250,000 years ago, H. erectus evolved into H. sapiens. Transitional forms between H. erectus and H. sapiens are referred to as archaic H. sapiens. With the exception of H. sapiens neandertalensis, no additional subspecies are recognized. Indeed, some scientists consider Neanderthal a separate species....'

I thought this blog was serious and not a comic strip!

Anonymous said...

Ever hear of Peanuts?

Well, this is Herb's nuts in the nut-cracker.

SmilinJackSprat said...

WW, Dennis Diehl, Apostate Paul, Anonymous:

Posts here most reflect Christian theory, but we're often discussing Hebrew concepts drawn from English translations of a core Jewish document. Shouldn’t the Jews, who wrote and preserved the Hebrew Scriptures, also be privy to what they mean?

Byker Bob says the Old Covenant wasn't done away but fulfilled. If I read him right, he’s saying that in fulfilling the Torah Jesus did something for mankind that mankind cannot do for himself. For a Jew trained in Judaism, this is mind-boggling.

Every morning observant Jews recall aloud that God has commanded us to engross ourselves in the words of Torah -- for the purpose of writing Torah so deeply in our hearts that our lives will reflect its influence. Jesus was an observant Jew; of course he fulfilled the Torah. That has always been the Jewish lifestyle. Unfortunately, so few Israelites have perpetuated this conduct that the covenant must be renewed again. Hence, the New Covenant.

The New Covenant will be a renewing, in the hearts of Israel and Judah, of the exact same Torah that Moses wrote and put into the Ark. Not my opinion, but God’s (Jer. 31:33, quoted in Hebrews 8, but explained there in language that would seem to deny Jeremiah’s quote of God). There is no “Old Covenant.” There is just one covenant between God and Israel. The New Covenant is a permanent renewal of the promise we made at Sinai, “all you have said we will do.” For this reason the Jews of Qumran saw themselves as a New Covenant community.

Anon says, “If the Torah is a "living, breathing" document, and man's interpretation of what is written changes based on time and circumstance, then it's hard to make the case that this book is inspired by God himself, or at least, that his followers desire to obey him.”

I disagree. If this Book is the inspired account of creation by the Creator who later cuts a covenant with one man’s family, then it must not only be historically accurate, but in legal matters must provide latitude and flexibility to allow intelligent rulings through generations of societal changes and technical advancements. Change is constant, so an inspired document must be adaptable.

For the record, Torah doesn’t mean Law; it means something closer to Instruction or Teaching. There is no other word rich enough to express all that is meant by Torah. The Torah is a gift from God entrusted to mankind through the children of Israel. Part of it is raw material from which law is derived, but the Torah is not “The Law,” and Jews aren’t under it. Each year we take it into our arms and dance with it. It’s ours now, on earth and not in heaven. Ours. We, just like Jesus and every other Jew, have responsibility to learn it, interpret it, apply it, rejoice in it, become it. It is the blueprint for society and for life itself – the DNA of the universe. We needn’t apologize for Torah’s ignorance, believe me.

Dennis Diehl sees the fossil record of mankind’s gradual development as evidence that Torah’s creation account is deficient. This is true, but only in terms of translations. The Hebrew account knows about homo-sapiens’ lengthy existence prior to Adam. Science doesn’t disprove Torah. In fact, the more science learns, the more Torah and science approach full congruency.

Long before discovery of the fossil record, working from the Hebrew Torah alone, the Rabbis knew the universe was ancient, that Adam’s creation was a spiritual alteration of
fully-developed homo-sapiens. Quite unlike the Creationist idea that the universe is only 6000 years old, the Rabbis knew that the Torah was precisely accurate, that Adam was created 6000 years ago, and that the “days” of Genesis become 24 earth-hours long only at the creation of Adam. They did not understand how this was possible, and that later generations would have to explain it as science advanced. Relativity finally made it understandable, and God apparently knew all about Relativity long before Einstein discovered it.

I’ll get off this soap box now. My intention has been to suggest that bad impressions of Scripture are often due to faulty knowledge of what it truly contains. Reading Torah in translation is akin to a groom seeing his bride in her wedding dress. Lovely, but there’s more…

DennisDiehl said...

Bummer, had a nice response SJP and it didn't show up and is now gone.

I agree that those who wrote the book should get to define what they meant.

For many reasons and with many examples, the NT badly quotes the OT, makes it mean what it never meant and portrays those such as Pharisees and Egyptians as the boogeymen they weren't. Where in the Bible do we ever hear a response from those attacked..Never. Pharisees were not the hated loons the Gospels and Paul make them out to be and I rather imagine Egyptians were more a type of human progress and knowledge than "sin."

labeling the successful as evil is what the little guys do to find meaning and justify their small and special status. (God's church will always be a samll group of people.")

Paul's use of Torah, Prophets and Writings is very suspect and twisted. He stands the original context on it's head, as does Matthew in his "and thus it was fulfilled" statments in his story of Jesus.

Paul claims, to have been the best student of the best teacher. Paul claims to be the best and the worst depending on his audience needs. You'd think he could have risen above temple policeman and tentmaker with the his "amazing, vast and over arching" credentials and experience.

One man, Paul, claims to know the real intent of Torah and the "OT". He goes out of his way to brag on how those who knew Jesus personally taught him nothing and that all his info came from the vision in his head. Uh huh...

It's dangerous to trust one man to understand the mind of God or the writings of others and expect a response to him alone.

But that example is why we have a Flurry, Pack, Weinland and others to begin with. The true individuals are the bane of this planet.

Weinland Watch said...

It's dangerous to trust one man to understand the mind of God or the writings of others and expect a response to him alone.

But that example is why we have a Flurry, Pack, Weinland and others to begin with. The true individuals are the bane of this planet.


100% agreed, Dennis.

(And the reason canonical NT was so hard on the Egyptians was because Constantine co-opted their holy books for same, and didn't want the sheeple checking the historical record and finding out what he had done. So there!) :-P

Anonymous said...

"Change is constant, so an inspired document must be adaptable."

Especially if there are parts in it that you disagree with, eh?





The Apostate Paul

Anonymous said...

"My intention has been to suggest that bad impressions of Scripture are often due to faulty knowledge of what it truly contains."

Right. If I read in the OT that God commanded the wholsale slaughter of men, women, children, and livestock, my conclusion that God is a psychotic mass murderer is nothing more than a "bad impression" based on "faulty knowledge." It must be a misunderstanding on my part.

The Apostate Paul

Byker Bob said...

What the world needs now is a "spiritual" Snopes! We've all known people who claim to be that, and want to single source all of our salvation related information, to their own advantages, I might add!

We learned from a poster above, or at least were reminded again, of oral Rabbinical traditions, supporting Mosaic law. Basically, during Jesus' time, the Scribes and Pharisees were the arbiters of this oral tradition! What was going on at the temple was largely due to the cumulative effect of the oral traditions, as they had been handed down. Jesus came along, asking "Hey, what is wrong with this picture?", but the Pharisees relied more on their centuries old "game of gossip", and ended up rejecting and getting the Romans to crucify the Messiah!

Yes, spiritual Snopes is sorely needed! I've seen a copy of an old Ernest Martin article from the 1960s. It was a very lengthy article, titled "Is Judaism the Law of Moses?" At the time of it's writing, Dr. Martin was an Armstrong apologist, but he did make some very valid points in that article. Pharisaic Judaism, as practiced during Jesus' life, was as far from the law of Moses as Constantine's universal church was from the teachings of Jesus.

As Mick once observed, "What can a poor boy do, except to play in a rock-roll band?" (Jumpin' Jack Flash, 1967- Jagger-Richard)

BB

DennisDiehl said...

One said: "Change is constant, so an inspired document must be adaptable."

Another said: "Especially if there are parts in it that you disagree with, eh? "

I don't believe I have met one single person in my life that ever said the reason they didn't find comfort, encouragement, the one truth to live by or the true way to be in the Bible, was that they actually did, but denied the truth so they could enjoy being evil.

I have found it more the result of experience with the proverb.."God, save me from your followers," or being "piously convicted yet marginally informed," makes some people, organizations and countries, dangerous in their application of religious truth to others.

The Bible itself carries enough seeds of it's own doubtability to keep an open mind suspicious for a lifetime and a theologian with another topic for a PhD.

DennisDiehl said...

Right. If I read in the OT that "God commanded the wholsale slaughter of men, women, children, and livestock, my conclusion that God is a psychotic mass murderer is nothing more than a "bad impression" based on "faulty knowledge." It must be a misunderstanding on my part.

The Apostate Paul"

Laughing my floor off rolling on my as....I can never get that right! LOTF, no ROLTALM, no...see?

DennisDiehl said...

Byker Bob said...
What the world needs now is a "spiritual" Snopes!"

Byker Robert! All we'd be doing is empowering and replacing the old pure true wrong Snopes with a newer version of the more pure true wrong Snopes!

Spirituality is not a group effort, I believe is my current and present truth.

What if a real God needed nothing from humans. (Praise, worship, obedience, money) Did not empower humans to provide him with what he doesn't need in the first place. (See above) And really likes Harleys? What if he/she really liked humans pretty much as they are except not the ones that behave like a bunch of crazy Israelites on the loose killing off the unchosen in love?

Ahhhh....world peace. :)

Anonymous said...

"Basically, during Jesus' time, the Scribes and Pharisees were the arbiters of this oral tradition! What was going on at the temple was largely due to the cumulative effect of the oral traditions..."


The oral law- the whipping boy of Armstrong Lite. Before I left Armstrongism, this was all I heard from Ron Dart and others like him. It was the oral law, not the written law, that Jesus had a problem with- it was the oral law, not the written law, that the Apostle Paul spoke out against. It wasn't so much a problem with the Law, but how it was to be carried out. You see, the meanie-weenie Pharisees had corrupted God's beautiful and merciful Law, tightening it up and allowing no wiggle room. And this was a tragedy, because a cursory reading of the Law of God will tell you that God wanted man to have mucho wiggle room when it came to the law- which ones to keep, and how to keep them.

This is utter bullshit of course. God made it clear, as written in the Torah, what he expected concerning the Law. This oral law argument is nothing more than mental acrobatics, a loophole, to justify using the Law to obey God while totally ignoring it's clear requirements. It is, as RCM is fond of saying, intellectual dishonesty.

I'll say it again, embrace the Law totally or trash it. There is no middle ground.



The Apostate Paul

SmilinJackSprat said...

This blog resembles a roomful of Jews discussing Torah after shul any given Sabbath day. Everyone has an opinion and is fearless presenting it. "Quietly" is an unknown adverb. No one has a monopoly on truth, including the Rabbi. You make me feel BI might be on to something, despite their many faults. When a critter looks, waddles, quacks like a duck...

Anonymous said...

"This blog resembles a roomful of Jews discussing Torah after shul any given Sabbath day."

Yes, if we could just only open our minds and hearts to get past the "literal" interpretation of things and come to see that the Law of God is really meant to be a carefree, fun-lovin group of suggestions that which we can cull through to see what fits our current lifestyles in this modern age. The problem is that we are hung up on this whole word of God thing. God never meant for his words to be taken literally, even if he did kill a shit-load of people for not following his word to the letter, I mean that was then, and this is now and we need to come to understand that the only parts of the Bible that are to be taken literally are the parts that show God in a good light, the parts that support our doctrines, and all those talking animal parts.

The Apostate Paul

SmilinJackSprat said...

Dear Apostate Paul,

It might be nice if you abandoned your grumpy pills for a day or two.

Rabbis don't cherry pick Torah commands. Quite often they build fences around them, to keep us recalcitrant Jews even farther from occasion to transgress.

Matters of jurisprudence have to change with the times. It's not about convenience. For example, when society invents space travel, how does a Jew observe Sabbath in space when Friday sundown is occurring somewhere on earth 24 hours in a row? Sabbath is a legal matter for Israelites, and Moses didn't rule on space travel, so this generation has the responsibility.

In other cases compassion must be factored into judgment, for example in the case of a rebellious child. One takes such a child to the elders of the community, seemingly to have him or her stoned to death. But that's only the surface reading. In reality, Israel never stoned a child to death.

Taking the child to community elders was for the purpose of lending competent help to the family. By all the records we have today, every child so treated was rehabilitated and later merged into society as a productive Israelite.

We refer to God as The Compassionate One, or The Holy One, Blessed be He. This terminology could never have been generated among people who view God as tyrannical and bloodthirsty. There's much more to the real picture than what meets the eye in a once-over-lightly reading of Torah in translation -- particularly when the translation has been made by people convinced that Jesus came to remove a harsh Law from human experience.

As I see it, where the Bible is concerned, misunderstanding separates humanity from Life. I find this a grievous reality, and therefore devote my energy to help mend this world in anticipation of a better world to come -- a world predicated on Law justly applied in a merciful world of free people.

And because the world would be so much the poorer without its many cultures, I cannot believe that everyone should be Jewish. On this I wholeheartedly agree with both Jesus and Paul.

Anonymous said...

"But that's only the surface reading. In reality, Israel never stoned a child to death."

And you know this? It's what it says. Israel was easily persuaded to crack babies heads agains walls and rape the moms. So why all of a sudden is it some deeply fair and just theolgical kindness

Once you understand the Taliban and Sharia law, you will understand the OT and how it really worked. Women are beheaded every Friday in Saudia Arabia and gay teens, or accused teens are hung from cranes ..

Anonymous said...

"We refer to God as The Compassionate One, or The Holy One, Blessed be He. This terminology could never have been generated among people who view God as tyrannical and bloodthirsty."

Therefore, God is not bloodthirsty and tyrannical, despite what the Bible itself states! Such flawless logic, and not circular in the least!


I think this sums up the logic behind all that you've said. Speculative bullshit, all geared toward being able to dance around the icky parts of the Bible.



The Apostate Paul

Anonymous said...

"It's what it says. Israel was easily persuaded to crack babies heads agains walls and rape the moms."

Anon, you and I just don't get it do we? You see, God never told Israel to kill anyone. In fact, God never killed anyone. It may surprise you, but if you know how to read the Bible in the correct context, you'll see that there is not one single act of violence in the Bible at all! I'm going to try harder to un-read the Bible like so many others can, so I can un-see what is not written there. I think the first step is knowing how to ignore actual words. I think a good reference in our quest for greater Biblical un-understanding would be Orwell's "1984." He has some great examples of un-reading. We could apply this to the Torah.

For example, in Zech. where it is foretold that God will punish the nations that do not come up to worship at the Feast of Tabernacles, what it really meant was that God will shower those nations with fuzzy bunnies and candy canes! Giggle and tee-hee! Bunny's tail tickles my nose! Tee-hee! Isn't God great! See how easy that is? We just have to condition ourselves to un-see the bad and see the good! Tee-hee!


The Apostate Paul

SmilinJackSprat said...

You're funny, Bubeleh. Keep looking on the bright side.

Mel said...

Hey Smilin,

Just curious. Are you a 'Messianic Jew'?

SmilinJackSprat said...

Mel, nope. I'm not a Messianic Jew, have never darkened the door of a Messianic synagogue. I am curious about Jesus and have looked, sometimes quite seriously, into what can be known about his life and teachings. He seems to have been an exemplary Jew, unusually keen on Torah and Jewish law; but I find his story evasive, not on his part, but on the part of those who, early on, reworked the pristine documents for their own purposes. I hope I'm alive when the true story is finally uncovered. I don't think most Jews care who Messiah is, so long as he comes and does what he's supposed to do.

DennisDiehl said...

"I don't think most Jews care who Messiah is, so long as he comes and does what he's supposed to do."

Hold not thine breath

Weinland Watch said...

Christian:

"Praise be to Jesus for I am saved the Messiah died for me!"

Jew:

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

Anonymous said...

Dennis die Menace said...

PS Leviticus has always been one of the great places in human understanding to look for advice on romance and human sexuality.



Yes, it is!!! I absolutely, totally agree!

Anonymous said...

Dennis die Menace,
Wineland Ogler and Time Waster,
Atrophied State of Paul's Mind,
Magazine Loving Gavin,
Etcetera:



Put away your fluffy Sunday school ideas. The Bible DOES mention many cases where God finally brought serious disaster on people. For example:

1. The great flood in Noah's time, BECAUSE the earth was full of violence.

2. The burning up of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, BECAUSE the inhabitants were all totally perverted and evil in the way they treated complete strangers.

3. The land vomiting out the inhabitants of Canaan, BECAUSE they committed all the sex sins mentioned in Leviticus 18 plus engaged in witchcraft and even sacrificed their own children in the fire.

4. The punishment of the northern Kingdom of Israel when it went into Assyrian captivity, BECAUSE generations of kings and their people "departed not from the sin of Jeroboam" who had replaced God's festivals listed in Levitcus 23 with other festivals and other priests and other gods of his own devising. And you can be sure that this was just the beginning of the evil.

5. The punishment of the southern Kingdom of Judah when it went into Babylonian captivity for 70 years, BECAUSE they had broken the Sabbath commandment and Jeremiah could not find even one person in the streets of Jerusalem who dealt honestly and sought the truth.

These Biblical stories were written for our example so that we can learn from them and not do the evil things that others have done in the past. Yet, the people in the USA and Britain today are getting into the exact same sins that were the downfall of the people in these Biblical stories.

Why would anyone rage against the laws of God? Do they themselves support the sinful and shameful behavior mentioned above? It appears that those behind the Ambassador Watch blog do!
Their hatred of good and love of evil does not go unnoticed, despite their efforts to appear to be reasonable in between their satanic rages and swearing sprees.

Mel said...

Smilin',
Thanks, that's interesting.
Do you have a 'wcg' background?
Not that there is anything wrong with not having one! ;-)

Anonymous said...

Hi Mel!

I too was wondering if SJP had a WCG background; his writing reminds me somewhat of Angela Himsel's.

Weinland Watch said...

Bugger. That last comment was from me.

Mel said...

WW,
Ha! We got together with another x-wcg couple today. The wife mentioned she'd seen "purple hymnal" videos on youtube that had cracked her up. On the way home it occurred to me that if I remembered correctly, the PH and WW person were one in the same. Who knows, maybe you're even a trinity, lol!

Weinland Watch said...

Purple Hymnal videos? They aren't mine, more's the pity. :-)

If you have the address for them, do post!

Anonymous said...

To Anon, who clearly is in favor of genocide:


Can an infant, let's say one to nine months old, if taken from it's environment and raised in a manner opposite from it's original environment, be different than those in it's original environment?

I ask because of the infants that existed in Sodom and Gommorah, Israel, Cannan, and those who lived prior to the flood, were all murdered by your psychotic, genocidal, insane God. Those infants did not do anything. Yet this psychotic, crazy bloodthirsty God murdered them for their parent's sins. Especially in the case of the genocide of the Cannanites, why couldn't your crazy genocidal God ordered the Israelites to spare the infants and raise them according to the Law?

Answer: Because your sick, crazy, murderous God is a sick, crazy and murderous deity. He is the "god of the desert, the god of death," much like Allah or Kali.

The Apostate Paul

Anonymous said...

It seems that your murderous God also smote me with a sickness of apostrophitis, temporarily rendering me incapable of distinguishing "its" from "it's," as my previous post shows. What a vengeful god this God of Death truly is!


The Apostate Paul

Anonymous said...

To Anon, who clearly is in favor of genocide:

Can an infant, let's say one to nine months old, if taken from it's environment and raised in a manner opposite from it's original environment, be different than those in it's original environment?

I ask because of the infants that existed in Sodom and Gommorah, Israel, Cannan, and those who lived prior to the flood, were all murdered by your psychotic, genocidal, insane God. Those infants did not do anything. Yet this psychotic, crazy bloodthirsty God murdered them for their parent's sins. Especially in the case of the genocide of the Cannanites, why couldn't your crazy genocidal God ordered the Israelites to spare the infants and raise them according to the Law?

Answer: Because your sick, crazy, murderous God is a sick, crazy and murderous deity. He is the "god of the desert, the god of death," much like Allah or Kali.

Apostrophitis Paul



Apostrophitis Paul,

The babies of these wicked people were already being abused and sacrificed in the fire to false gods by their own parents, just as many babies are being murdered today by the abortionists in the USA and Britain. I do hope that you are shocked by all this selfish killing by sinful people.

Your question reminded me of a woman talking about her son that she had put up for adoption when he was just a few months old, and then went to find when he turned 18 years old. He had been with a good wealthy family for those 18 years, yet he had turned out very bad, and had been nothing but trouble for them from the very start. I remember the woman laughing about how he was just like his biological father that she had fornicated with so many years ago. After a few more months with him at age 18 years, she got rid of him again. She packed his knife at the bottom of his bag and hoped she wouldn't get beat up or killed.

Perhaps you should stop posting until you are cured of your apostrophitis and other mental problems.

God is God. He does as He sees fit. Wicked people whine and whine and whine about the consequences of their behavior, but utterly refuse to behave any better. If you really don't want to end up eating your own children, then maybe you should stop sinning.

Anonymous said...

Apostate Paul said:

"Especially in the case of the genocide of the Cannanites, why couldn't your crazy genocidal God ordered the Israelites to spare the infants and raise them according to the Law?"

Anon answered:

"The babies of these wicked people were already being abused and sacrificed in the fire to false gods by their own parents..."

And? Isn't this more of reason to save them? Are you implying that children in those types of situations should be slaughtered? Are you endorsing the policy of murdering abused children?"

"Perhaps you should stop posting until you are cured of your apostrophitis and other mental problems."

I oppose the slaughter of infants, a policy which you agree with, and you have the nerve to say that I am the one with a mental problem??

"God is God. He does as He sees fit."


Indeed he is. And if he were real (which he isn't), I would reject him out of hand and go to my death with dignity- knowing that I didn't become a servant of a wicked, genocidal God.



"If you really don't want to end up eating your own children, then maybe you should stop sinning."

So if I don't stop eating pork and pulling weeds on Saturday, God will see to it that I murder and eat my own child? What a sick, ghastly god.


The Apostate Paul

Anonymous said...

So if I don't stop eating pork and pulling weeds on Saturday, God will see to it that I murder and eat my own child? What a sick, ghastly god.

The Apostate Paul



Sick, Ghastly Apostate,

I am sure that gardening on the Sabbath and eating pork are just the very tip of the iceberg of your many sins. You are deliberately trying to fool your own self and other people. Add in the fact that all the thoughts of your heart are nothing but evil continually. That is why you will be in trouble.