tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post1040521803216360843..comments2023-11-05T20:19:44.812+13:00Comments on Ambassador Watch: Weasel WordsGavinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-9751450345399499022008-10-16T05:09:00.000+13:002008-10-16T05:09:00.000+13:00"No... the old WCG was a counter culture movement ..."No... the old WCG was a counter culture movement in which one could feel the Holy Spirit moving.<BR/>Once you have felt her you know what she's like. You can't find the Holy Spirit working in the same broad organizational way today."<BR/><BR/>LOL! "movement"?<BR/>Well, something WAS moving:<BR/>Herbert had a bowel movement and he crapped on the members' heads.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you are one of those who has a fetish for such things.<BR/>I don't.<BR/><BR/>But, your comment did crack me up. I don't think I've heard quite the nostalgic look-back at Herbert's org(somewhat akin to nostalgically thinking of old seagoing wood-and-sail vessels) before.<BR/>Well, maybe I have.<BR/><BR/>I should have had CSNY's "Wooden Ships" playing as I read your comment!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-68974890655587503272008-10-13T05:06:00.000+13:002008-10-13T05:06:00.000+13:00Anonymous 3:44 wrote:"All you guys on here are mor...Anonymous 3:44 wrote:<BR/>"All you guys on here are more proof of the validity of the word of God. Scoffers mockers scorners just like Christ told us."<BR/><BR/>Then enlighten us all, Anonymous 3:44, exactly why are YOU here then? To provide us with a powerfully reasoned and well-expressed witness against us from God?<BR/><BR/>And frankly if you consider the various comments made on this blogsite "proof of the validity of the word of God" then you truly are building on a foundation of sand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-78800466633322569402008-10-12T10:38:00.000+13:002008-10-12T10:38:00.000+13:00Ralph, The Old Covenant was a contract between G...Ralph, <BR/> The Old Covenant was a contract between God and the nation of Israel involving the granting of national power and prominence in exchange for obedience to a prescribed set of rules.<BR/><BR/>The New Covenant is also a contract, but between God and all of mankind. Mankind is granted eternal life in exchange for having the willingness to accept the sacrifice of God’s son on their behalf.<BR/><BR/>In both contracts, it appears that God does most (or all) of the giving. That would be true. The New Covenant supercedes the old one on spiritual matters.larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11207263922457941293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-11318157864647361582008-10-12T03:44:00.000+13:002008-10-12T03:44:00.000+13:00All you guys on here are more proof of the validit...All you guys on here are more proof of the validity of the word of God. Scoffers mockers scorners just like Christ told us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-83930454514433833292008-10-10T19:02:00.000+13:002008-10-10T19:02:00.000+13:00Anonymous Mon Oct 06, 06:12:00 AM NZDT said:"No......Anonymous Mon Oct 06, 06:12:00 AM NZDT said:<BR/><BR/>"No... the old WCG was a counter culture movement in which one could feel the Holy Spirit moving.<BR/><BR/>Once you have felt her you know what she's like. You can't find the Holy Spirit working in the same broad organizational way today."<BR/><BR/>Once you have felt her? The Holy Spirit as a her? I do not remember ever reading that before and regard "it" as being a correct reference to the power that God and Christ use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-40277587723846689682008-10-08T02:02:00.000+13:002008-10-08T02:02:00.000+13:00Anon: //--No... the old WCG was a counter culture ...Anon: //--<I>No... the old WCG was a counter culture movement in which one could feel the Holy Spirit moving.<BR/><BR/>Once you have felt her you know what she's like...<BR/><BR/>That is why people joined.</I> --//<BR/><BR/>"Her"? You mean the Holy Spirit??<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid you may be talking about a different "old WCG." Perhaps you are referring to "Women of the Church of God" of Anderson, Indiana, established in 1932?<BR/><BR/>On this blog, we've been discussing the Worldwide Church of God, a group founded by a former advertising agent named Herbert W. Armstrong in 1933. There are several daughter groups today. In this particular "old WCG," Armstrong taught most vociferously that the Holy Spirit is not a "her" -- in fact, is not even a Person in the sense that the Father and the Son are.<BR/><BR/>People of this particular "old WCG" would not have joined because of feeling the feminine presence of the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>Libro<BR/><BR/>(Armstrong also carefully identified himself as non-Pentecostal...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-79090427248733808592008-10-07T04:42:00.000+13:002008-10-07T04:42:00.000+13:00Larry wrote:“Leonardo, I understand your predicame...Larry wrote:<BR/>“Leonardo, I understand your predicament. My use of double negatives was confusing, but was done to prove a point. And it obviously worked.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>But isn’t the ideal of communication to be to make your points with CLARITY? Your use of double-negatives was indeed confusing, and I still fail to see what relevant point it actually proved, so obviously it didn’t work, at least it didn't for me.<BR/><BR/>The rest of your response makes perfectly good sense…IF your audience assumes and accepts as valid the same blind ASSUMPTION you make: that the ancient manuscript we call the Bible is the literal, unerring, “Word of God.”<BR/><BR/>Fundamentalist religion, especially HWA’s brand of it, never intelligibly made it’s case regarding this hypothesis – although it tried, most notably with the embarrassing “Proof of the Bible” booklet, which was basically plagiarized from other material, and eventually pulled from the WCG shelves because of all it’s errors in research and false conclusions reached.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 6:37 makes the claim: “Larry's comment given to Leonardo Sun Oct 05, 04:47:00 PM NZDT was absolutely excellent! He stated that, "God wants, demands, expects,....and provides faith. People want proof, "seeing is believing", but God is calling leaders for His Kingdom right now. And they must be folks who are willing to trust Him implicitly, without proof." Again I say, "EXCELLENT!!"<BR/><BR/>What is this person REALLY saying? “Larry agrees with my foundational assumptions about the Bible, and so his comment to Leonardo is excellent.”<BR/><BR/>But to get back to my original point: you’ve still not made your case with any real evidence, and yes, Anonymous 6:57, your mere assertions must be taken on blind faith. You can’t provide solid, comprehensible evidence, proof, or logic that your assumption/assertion is correct. CLAIMING that it is doesn't constitute legtimate proof.<BR/><BR/>Christianity has been trying to do this for centuries now, and they keep re-cycling the same worm-eaten apologetic arguments that have been soundly refuted time and time again. Serious thinkers and Christian apologists like Blase Pascal and C.S. Lewis openly acknowledged this.<BR/><BR/>Notice that Anonymous 6:57 wrote: “My proof is the same proof God Himself revealed to Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong. How do I know it's true? IT'S IN GOD'S WORD!”<BR/><BR/>But this is nothing more than the fallacy of circular reasoning at it’s best (worst!) - something Fundamentalist Christians just can't seem to work beyond. A Muslim, for example, can make the same essential claim for a point of Islamic teaching: “The Quran says infidels must be killed. How do I know this is right and true? What is my evidence? Allah tells me so through the words of the holy Quran!”<BR/><BR/>This “argument” wouldn’t convince you, would it? Why? Because it carelessly ASSUMES you take the entire unproved premise it's built upon to be true!<BR/><BR/>But yet you use the IDENTICAL kind of circular reasoning! Therefore, your essential argument doesn’t work for those outside your fellow believers any more than the Muslim’s argument doesn’t persuade you.<BR/><BR/>This is so because all such arguments are founded upon the mere quoting of a series of ancient writings ASSUMED and taken on faith to be the one and only “Word of God.” But mindlessly quoting from them doesn’t prove them to be the inerrant “Word of God!”<BR/><BR/>An absolutely critical distinction must be drawn between KNOWLEDGE and FAITH. You can BELIEVE with great passion, and HOPE and WISH with all your heart that a certain premise or assertion be true, but WISHING won't make it so. It either IS true, or it ISN'T true, and all your subjective emotions won't change that fact.<BR/><BR/>American president Abraham Lincoln used to ask audiences, "If we call the tail of a particular dog a leg, how many legs then does the dog have?" People would chuckle, and yell out "Five!" To which Lincoln would respond "No, the dog still has only four legs, because CALLING a tail a leg doesn't actually MAKE it one!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-55742786719122552952008-10-07T03:41:00.000+13:002008-10-07T03:41:00.000+13:00Anonymous 12:35/Lochinvar wrote:“Sorry, Leonardo, ...Anonymous 12:35/Lochinvar wrote:<BR/>“Sorry, Leonardo, you're wrong. The booklet "Prophecy 1975" was NOT based on Paul Ehrlichman's nonsensical screed. I first read HWA's booklet in the late fifties and I understand it was based on a magazine article allegedly describing the future.”<BR/><BR/>Hi Lochinvar,<BR/><BR/>Leonardo stands corrected…well, sort of, at least in part.<BR/><BR/>I could have made my post in question with more precise verbal clarity – obviously, “1975 in Prophecy” (first published in 1956 – and still available on-line at: http://www.cgca.net/pabco/1975pro.htm) was literally “based” on HWA’s incorrect understanding of prophecy, especially as fueled by his belief in the “19-year time cycles” of Dr. Hoeh.<BR/><BR/>Paul Ehrlich’s (not Erlichman) work (“The Population Bomb” from 1968, as well as “Famine 1975!” which was published around the same time by William Paddock) was referenced in later editions of “1975 in Prophecy”, as it was in other WCG literature of the time as a source of secular support for HWA erroneous predictions.<BR/><BR/>So although my blog comment was in error on some technical points, which I humbly acknowledge, the primary thrust and conclusion of its argument was not: as both HWA’s and Erlich’s predictions ultimately proved completely wrong.<BR/><BR/>I sincerely do appreciate your comment, Lochinvar, which helped correct and clarify my understanding on the more technical points of the issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-49021462136408566572008-10-06T17:00:00.000+13:002008-10-06T17:00:00.000+13:00Greg D, you are quite right. The election of Obama...Greg D, you are quite right. The election of Obama would be the finishing touch to the development of a socialist state in America. Fascism would be right around the corner and not far behind. The Democrats have made it clear that private property should be "taken" by the government and given to those "less fortunate", and that freedom of speech will no longer be allowed.larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11207263922457941293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-89953170501519272642008-10-06T15:58:00.000+13:002008-10-06T15:58:00.000+13:00In 50, maybe 100, words or less can someone explai...In 50, maybe 100, words or less can someone explain to me the difference between the "old' and the "new" covenants?Ralphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09094056276430807523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-7213734620330833242008-10-06T14:58:00.000+13:002008-10-06T14:58:00.000+13:00Mr. Scribe wrote responding to my earlier "anonymo...Mr. Scribe wrote responding to my earlier "anonymous" comment: <BR/><BR/>"What Herbert was to religion, Obama is to politics. Obama has no real life experience to be in a position of leadership of the most powerful country in the world! Herbert was a high school dropout that also spoke if as he had authority from God almighty."<BR/> <BR/>No comparison. HWA was uneducated and preached toxic values. Obama is educated, a constitutional lawyer, a college professor, a state senator for eight years and now US senator, and highly intelligent. The "lack of experience" objection doesn't carry weight to me since the real issue is policies and staff, and Obama seems likely to pick competent people based on all indicators I have seen so far. Modern presidents set priorities, sell visions and policies to the public, and choose the staff who do the actual work of carrying out policies. Obama shows every sign of doing all of this well and I think Obama would be effective as president.<BR/><BR/>Now consider: both old WCG and ex-WCG-land are about 90% hard-right Republican politically. Why is this? <BR/><BR/>It is not Obama that is the analogy with HWA, but the Christian Right and HWA. The christian right, with end-times "judgment of God" interpretations of things like 911 and Katrina, end-time notions of Israel and nuclear war, notions of turning America into a theocracy, notions of American imperial right to rule all of heaven and earth like the kings of babylon and Tyre of old, anti-science, suppression of women, and other things advocated by Christian Right leaders ... THAT is the analogy with HWA/WCG-land of old. The christian right organizations and political clout comes complete with a hapless few tens of millions of voting grassroots supporters (largely decent people individually who have bought the snake oil) like the faithful WCG supporters of old ... that is the analogy. And the Christian right is the largest voting base of the Republican Party, the voting bloc that gave us and the world Bush-Cheney, the largest voting bloc for McCain-Republican continuity. This is the continuity from HWA and WCG outlooks on the world. Step back for a moment and see it for what it is!<BR/><BR/>Obama-Biden won't be perfect by a long shot, but I think they will be among the more capable of Democratic administrations. To re-elect Republicans again for control of the executive branch, when McCain has essentially the same people, the same ideology, and the same party that ran the Bush-Cheney presidency, in my opinion is WCG-HWA-scale insanity on a national scale.<BR/><BR/>That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is the choice is between the center-right party, in European terms, and the hard-right party. The center-right party being Democrats and the hard-right party being Republicans. Not ideal, but that's the choice. Or a third way of looking at it: the constitutional lawyer who has shown intelligence and concern for greater respect for constitutional limitations on a runaway executive branch (Obama) versus a possible aging expendable precursor to actual runaway executive power aka fascism (a McCain presidency followed by exit of the expendable McCain, with deepening consolidation of the "unitary executive").<BR/><BR/>Two books worth reading (both accessible online): The Iron Hand, by Jack London, and It Can't Happen Here, by Sinclair Lewis. Both are fictional portrayals of fascism coming about in America. <BR/><BR/>Greg D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-85546286444750403242008-10-06T06:12:00.000+13:002008-10-06T06:12:00.000+13:00"Old school Armstrongism always exploited fear."No..."Old school Armstrongism always exploited fear."<BR/><BR/>No... the old WCG was a counter culture movement in which one could feel the Holy Spirit moving.<BR/><BR/>Once you have felt her you know what she's like. You can't find the Holy Spirit working in the same broad organizational way today. <BR/><BR/>Very unique and very lovely...<BR/><BR/>That is why people joined.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-61247194269744225412008-10-06T03:32:00.000+13:002008-10-06T03:32:00.000+13:00Hello. I am Anonymous 4:28 and this is what byker...Hello. I am Anonymous 4:28 and this is what byker bob said:<BR/><BR/> Byker Bob said... <BR/>"Anonymous 4:28, first of all, let me say I admire the tremendous courage it must have taken for an anonymous ACOG member to use the "evil" internet, and to post here. Welcome! We're all here to learn."<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the compliment but I did not even think of courage or a lack of it when I wrote my response. Thinking back on it, I hope wisdom causes me to be anonymous in these forums because I do not know who I am dealing with here. I am not saying you (byker bob)would be a problem since you might be an enlightening person to discuss with, but in general I do not know who these people, for the most part, are. I remember Dennis Diehl since he baptized me in 1981 and I remember the comments of the brethren about him. They loved him so. I have continued on with much of what he taught us, that I found to be truth since 1981. Some teachings I have reexamined but the 10 commandments etc. are there to guide us into right living because of our relationship with Almighty God, Christ, our brethren and mankind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-54102679668170873942008-10-06T02:45:00.000+13:002008-10-06T02:45:00.000+13:00Oh, and be sure to read Matt 11:13 as well. Just t...Oh, and be sure to read Matt 11:13 as well. Just to make sure you see who Elijah is in context.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-68230176199412756002008-10-06T02:42:00.000+13:002008-10-06T02:42:00.000+13:00"God Himself promised He would send someone in the..."God Himself promised He would send someone in the power and spirit of Elijah to restore all things."<BR/><BR/>And that was fulfilled. Read Matthew 11:14.<BR/><BR/>Just because someone co-opts the claim to the title doesn't make it true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-54418851523841753672008-10-06T02:31:00.000+13:002008-10-06T02:31:00.000+13:00Anonymous wrote:"There is good politics and there ...Anonymous wrote:<BR/><BR/>"There is good politics and there is dysfunctional and unintelligent politics. But there is no substitute for the hard work of learning the issues, engaging the issues, and taking intelligent human action."<BR/><BR/>Then he inserts "Obama '08"<BR/><BR/>What Herbert was to religion, Obama is to politics. Obama has no real life experience to be in a position of leadership of the most powerful country in the world! Herbert was a high school dropout that also spoke if as he had authority from God almighty. Herb didn't have any authority. He spoke what you wanted to hear. All this to feed his insatiable desires. Lust for power, position and money! A true religious whore!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-1467723608849599072008-10-06T00:29:00.000+13:002008-10-06T00:29:00.000+13:00"Paul gives every evidence that he loved his Jewis...<EM>"Paul gives every evidence that he loved his Jewish brethren, yet <STRONG>he openly states that he was deeply grieved that they could not understand</STRONG> that Jesus Christ was their messiah."</EM><BR/><BR/>Let us leave aside whether or not Paul, or Saul, or if you're Robert Price, Simon Magus, actually existed, and address the underlying semiotics of that particular scripture, shall we? Beginning with the passage I have highlighted.<BR/><BR/>Is it A) Condescending B) Elitist C) Presupposes "The Jews got their own religion wrong!!" D) All of the above, and so very much more.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't take Paul or Saul or Simon Magus, as a very good example of a role model to take after though Bob (if he actually existed at all): The man portrayed in the canonical NT is vain, self-centred, sounds like he wants to be the early Pope instead of Peter, likely had temporal lobe epilepsy, was fallen by several illnesses later in life (There's that scripture, "by their fruits"....?) and let us not forget the couched-in-religious terms-and-thinly-veiled anti-Semitism.<BR/><BR/>But perhaps that is the point the author(s) of the Pauline texts were trying to make, and the satire slipped under the radar of the literalizing Nicene Council.<BR/><BR/>(I can hear the argument against my contention that the texts are anti-Semitic now. "Oh but Paul was Jewish!" Hm. "He", or one of the authors of the various books pseudepigraphically attributed to him, said he was. But wait, he also (or one of the authors of the various books pseudepigraphically attributed to him) said he was a Roman. What to do, what to do, the contradictions strike again.)<BR/><BR/>Not that I'm shilling for any particular religion, they're all systems of crowd-control. But the Christians should have just taken the new testament, and left aside the Torah and Tanakh altogether. The "proving" scriptures in the OT are very few and extremely far between, and actually "prove" zilch, as far as I'm concerned.<BR/><BR/>Christians nominally claim descendance from Abraham (at least those who cling to a modified form of Anglo-Israelism do), but really that's bunkum too. So there's nothing Christians can take from the Old Testament, so they should excise it from their bibles completely, go their own merry little literalist ways, and (here's the important part) <STRONG><EM>stop making those snide little comments about the Jews</EM></STRONG>!<BR/><BR/>Is that really so difficult?<BR/><BR/>Yes, I suppose it is, for without someone to blame, that leaves the Christian religion with having to stand on that "love thy neighbour" crap, which clearly they don't do either.<BR/><BR/>The "Christian" religion as we know it today has little to do with Abraham or David, or David's mythological "descendant" (Who "was not born of man", oddly enough, yet he's supposed to be the direct lineage of David. Huh what?), and everything to do with the Egyptian mystery schools of Isis and Horus and Osiris, whose adherents understood the tales about same were allegories and myths.<BR/><BR/><EM>"It might take a few hundred or a few thousand years, but truth wins out over mythology, midrash, astro-theologyical observations and literalism every time."</EM><BR/><BR/>Amen to that! I have personally found that truth can be gainsayed through a personal application of the underlying allegories of mythology, but that's not to say my truth is or should or can be, anyone else's but my own.<BR/><BR/><EM>"but God is calling leaders for His Kingdom right now."</EM><BR/><BR/>I really would like to know whether or not your local ministry knows you post here Larry, and whether or not they know exactly what it is you post? Weren't you listening in December of 1994? Senior cancelled that kingdom, boy-o, so you've got exactly bupkus to look forward to.<BR/><BR/>Unless it was a case of "Shhhhhhh....we still believe the same crap about being old testament overlords in the Kingdom of Gawd after the End of the World. Just don't tell the evangelicals we're bedding down with!!"<BR/><BR/><EM>"It didn't, because they had no faith.<BR/><BR/>You may think that you would be different, but you are not."</EM><BR/><BR/>I actually agree with this, Larry, you're absolutely right. I have no faith whatsoever. And my life has improved immeasurably ever since I dispensed with it.<BR/><BR/><EM>"God indeed is doing the most wonderful work of reproducing Himself."</EM><BR/><BR/>Gawd as gawd is gawd theology again. <A HREF="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge#Gnosticism" REL="nofollow">That god who's reproducing himself isn't the god you think he is, anon.</A><BR/><BR/><EM>"Larry's comment given to Leonardo Sun Oct 05, 04:47:00 PM NZDT was absolutely excellent!"</EM><BR/><BR/>Look Larry! The hard-core Armstrongist actually agrees with you! That would send Junior and Weazell into conniptions if they knew!<BR/><BR/><EM>"Jesus is offering the Kingdom to people now, in this difficult and evil age."</EM><BR/><BR/>Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to. "Oh we don't hold fast to any Armstrongism! No way! But the world ("THE world") really IS evil and terrible and horrible and Satan's dominion!"<BR/><BR/>Yeah, what's Armstrongist about that?? (Picture me rolling my eyes at this point.)<BR/><BR/><EM>"But the kingdom is a small thing. It is no more then a small "mustard bush"."</EM><BR/><BR/>Mustard <EM>seed</EM>. The least you can do, anon, is get your own mythology right.<BR/><BR/><EM>"Most people don't see the kingdom and most don't experience it."</EM><BR/><BR/>Elitism, by any other attitude, still stinks as much as it used to. "And here let me beat my bible at those who don't see it cause otherwise they're gonna FRYYYYYYYYYYYYYY......" Yeah no. No we're not.<BR/><BR/><EM>"Gospel Thomas 13<BR/>His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."</EM><BR/><BR/>This verse, along with the verses below it supporting a Petrine misogyny, are thought to have been added to the original collection at a later date.<BR/><BR/><EM>"The editors of the New Testament changed Jesus kingdom message, they changed the gospel."</EM><BR/><BR/>Changed it? Not exactly. They excised the more blatant "gospels" that pointed to the truth of the actual religion as it was practiced on the ground, in the first and second centuries.<BR/><BR/>No, what Constantine and the Council changed was the approach taken to the gospels; instead of being read as allegories and parables, mythologies and legends, the texts were to be taken as divinely inerrant and literal historical truth. And Constantine had his crowd-control, ready-made and pre-packaged.<BR/><BR/>Instead of rising up against their corrupt emperor (who styled himself a god-king in his own right), the christianized masses slipped into a religious stupor, dreaming gently of some fantasy far away and never-to-come, while Rome burned around them.<BR/><BR/>Two thousand years later, the blinded-by-faith "Christian" believers of the world still haven't woken up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-66386515652161254152008-10-05T20:36:00.000+13:002008-10-05T20:36:00.000+13:00Anonymous 4:28, first of all, let me say I admire ...Anonymous 4:28, first of all, let me say I admire the tremendous courage it must have taken for an anonymous ACOG member to use the "evil" internet, and to post here. Welcome! We're all here to learn.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, I have no idea what is taught in UCG, because I've never attended any of their services. All that I know is that the vast majority of the people who were "called" into Armstrongism back in the '50s, '60s, and '70s, ended up in WCG because HWA and GTA had scared the bejesus out of them with their version of the "gospel", which was heavily based on a British Israel approach to prophecy, and indicated that the Germans, whom they had falsely identified as descendents of the Assyrians, would soon overwhelm all of the English-speaking peoples for "forgetting" their national identities, and turning their backs on the Old Covenant practices, which, in fact, they had never known. In other words, you had a huge number of people looking to save their behinds by joining a toxic cult, and allowing their guru to do their thinking for them, largely buying into his speculative theories, and uneducated eisegesis of the scriptures.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, part of the HWAcaca that we were subjected to, once on the inside, was constant belittling, and unrelenting implication that we might not be worthy to escape the coming calamities, because (gasp!) we might be Laodecean. (More extrabiblical garbage!) So, everyone pretty much lived in a state of limbo, or terror, never knowing if we'd be good enough to escape. I later learned that this line of thinking is in fact a natural byproduct of legalism, which is why Jesus was so critical of the Pharisees.<BR/><BR/>Now, if UCG no longer reveres HWA as an "apostle", and if British Israelism has been repudiated as the unprovable ridiculous theory that it really is, then I am happy for your church group, because it would seem that you might have progressed a bit on the path to spiritual enlightenment. Jetisonning extra-biblical teachings is always a good starting point in finding truth.<BR/><BR/>I believe that Jesus will look after His own, and that no matter where we are, if in fact God decides that the prophecies need to be kicked in during our lifetimes, each of us will experience as individuals exactly what God feels we need for our longterm spiritual good. I've learned that some people from the extreme faith movement even believe that Christians are going to want to be right in the thick of the tribulation, as it unfolds, so that they can minister to their neighbors, and to work where they can see that God's Spirit is working leading up to Jesus' return. Others believe that 3-1/2 years in, Christians will be caught up into the heavens to wait out the most horrible portion of the calamities.<BR/><BR/>Old school Armstrongism always exploited fear. It was the basic marketing technique for their version of the gospel. If UCG now places more emphasis on faith, and has dumped the fear-mongering, then good for them. God values most the things that we willingly choose to do. Good is of no value if it was the path chosen under duress. That's why fear-based religion is such a falacy.<BR/><BR/>BBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-22386502740456668022008-10-05T19:37:00.000+13:002008-10-05T19:37:00.000+13:00"God wants, demands, expects,....and provides fait..."God wants, demands, expects,....and provides faith. People want proof, "seeing is believing", but God is calling leaders for His Kingdom right now. And they must be folks who are willing to trust Him implicitly, without proof."<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, God is not calling leaders for His kingdom. That is not the Gospel of the Kingdom.<BR/><BR/>Jesus is offering the Kingdom to people now, in this difficult and evil age. It is the main way that Jesus saves folks now and gives them a good life.<BR/><BR/>But the kingdom is a small thing. It is no more then a small "mustard bush". Like a small bush that provides shelter to small birds, the kingdom provides shelter to individual Christians.<BR/><BR/>Most people don't see the kingdom and most don't experience it.<BR/><BR/>Gospel Thomas 3 <BR/>Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>Gospel Thomas 13 <BR/>His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."<BR/><BR/>The editors of the New Testament changed Jesus kingdom message, they changed the gospel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-3984686356607276512008-10-05T18:57:00.000+13:002008-10-05T18:57:00.000+13:00"You end your assertion "A Brother in the Faith" -..."You end your assertion "A Brother in the Faith" - and righly so, because everything you said in your comment must be taken on blind faith since you can produce no real or persuasive evidence for it at all."<BR/><BR/>Dear friend: Who said anything about "blind faith"?<BR/><BR/>God indeed is doing the most wonderful work of reproducing Himself.<BR/><BR/>My proof is the same proof God Himself revealed to Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong.<BR/><BR/>How do I know it's true?<BR/><BR/>IT'S IN GOD'S WORD!<BR/><BR/>God Himself promised He would send someone in the power and spirit of Elijah to restore all things.<BR/><BR/>Now if you can't follow through, I just don't know what to tell you.<BR/><BR/>But one thing I do know, is that the proofs are there for anyone with "eyes to see," and "ears to hear with."<BR/><BR/>You either do or don't get it, that's all there's to it.<BR/><BR/>Sorry I can't help you understand it. I simply can't do it if God hasn't call you to repentance yet.<BR/><BR/>I wish you the best in your search for God's truth though.<BR/><BR/>Why don't you ask God in your prayers to help you, and go back to reading everything His end-time apostle wrote? Perhaps God will have mercy on you and will finally open up your mind to His understanding.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/><BR/>A brother in the True Faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-71056582180999930522008-10-05T18:37:00.000+13:002008-10-05T18:37:00.000+13:00Larry's comment given to Leonardo Sun Oct 05, 04:4...Larry's comment given to Leonardo Sun Oct 05, 04:47:00 PM NZDT <BR/>was absolutely excellent! He stated that, "God wants, demands, expects,....and provides faith. People want proof, "seeing is believing", but God is calling leaders for His Kingdom right now. And they must be folks who are willing to trust Him implicitly, without proof." Again I say, "EXCELLENT!!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-80051131577188164012008-10-05T16:47:00.000+13:002008-10-05T16:47:00.000+13:00Leonardo, I understand your predicament. My use of...Leonardo, I understand your predicament. My use of double negatives was confusing, but was done to prove a point. And it obviously worked.<BR/><BR/>The problem with the whole issue of the fulfillment of "prophecy" in general, is that it gives people "proof" without faith. <BR/><BR/>God wants, demands, expects,....and provides faith. People want proof, "seeing is believing", but God is calling leaders for His Kingdom right now. And they must be folks who are willing to trust Him implicitly, without proof. <BR/><BR/>Remember the lesson of the Israelites, who watched the Red Sea parted for them. Such a miracle should have sufficed for them to believe every word from God. It didn't, because they had no faith.<BR/><BR/> You may think that you would be different, but you are not.larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11207263922457941293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-78389629161016268712008-10-05T16:28:00.000+13:002008-10-05T16:28:00.000+13:00byker bob said, "I believe that unlike WCG members...byker bob said, "I believe that unlike WCG members, mainstream Christians have a much more enlightened outlook towards the possible future calamities. While acknowledging that such events will eventually happen, they don't live in constant fear of them. They have faith that everything is in God's hands, and He works events out for His childrens' long term spiritual good."<BR/><BR/>If you mean wwcg members who now attend with UCG, then that does not apply to us. I don't know of anyone that attends locally at the UCG I attend who lives in fear of future calamities, etc. I believe we trust God and try to be ready for Christ's return.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-29556661635051471242008-10-05T15:18:00.000+13:002008-10-05T15:18:00.000+13:00Aggie, "anti-semitic" would be making a statement ...Aggie, "anti-semitic" would be making a statement like "I don't like Jews". Now, I can't honestly make that statement, because I actually do like most of the Jewish people whom I've met in my lifetime. Attacking, or addressing their philosophies, or ideas is not anti-semitic. You can refer to people as having been blinded by the Old Covenant, like Paul did, without being some sort of racist or hate-mongerer. Paul gives every evidence that he loved his Jewish brethren, yet he openly states that he was deeply grieved that they could not understand that Jesus Christ was their messiah.<BR/><BR/>BBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-33408141307740281252008-10-05T12:35:00.000+13:002008-10-05T12:35:00.000+13:00Sorry, Leonardo, you're wrong. The booklet "Prophe...Sorry, Leonardo, you're wrong. The booklet "Prophecy 1975" was NOT based on Paul Ehrlichman's nonsensical screed. I first read HWA's booklet in the late fifties and I understand it was based on a magazine article allegedly describing the future.<BR/><BR/>LochinvarAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com