I'm predicting an Obama victory. My major reason is that Willie Dankenbring seems to be pinning his credibility on a McCain/Palin win.Here's what Willie says in his latest long-winded ad in The Journal (for which, I sincerely hope, Dixon charged him top dollar):
With a proud, arrogant, haughty Obama at the helm, a neophyte, a do-nothing, inexperienced “amateur” in charge as “Commander in Chief,” our decline would be seriously hastened and our national world standing quickly eroded, as enemies began to pounce. The great time of tribulation would be hastened and soon engulf our shores.
With McCain and Palin at the helm, if they win the Presidential race, then it would appear that God in heaven has given us a little more time—perhaps four more years—to preach the gospel of the Kingdom of God, to get God’s message out to this war-weary sin-sick world—to thunder and rattle the gates of heaven — before the ‘end’ comes.
Proud, arrogant and haughty... hmm. My terrible confession is that once I thought that Willie was a smart cookie. Tucked safely away in storage I have copies of several of his books from the 1970s - I wouldn't contaminate my bookshelves with them these days.
Willie undoubtedly wrote this schlock with a sudden rush of blood to the head when it briefly appeared that the Palin factor was an asset rather than a liability. In any event, Willie seems to be saying that if McCain takes the presidency, his myopic little godling will sit back in the heavenly armchair and graciously grant humankind an extension to its suffering here below. You'd think Willie would be praying for an Obama victory so this "sin-sick" world would mercifully reach its terminus sooner - but that's hardly his logic. Willie is, I suspect, hoping to pull the same rabbit out of the hat that Rod Meredith did with George W. Bush: elect a conservative and the embarrassingly wrong prophetic speculation can be pushed a little further into the mists.
Then again, I wonder what Willie thinks it means to "thunder and rattle the gates of heaven"... as far as I can see all he does nowadays is write dopey ads for The Journal and issue low quality re-writes of the KJV...
But watch this space: if Obama wins expect the Trib to "engulf our shores" well before "four more years" - for thus saith the prophet.
86 comments:
In 1972, it was our fault the end was delayed. Another time we were waiting for the Queen to die/abdicate, because the end wouldn't come with a woman on David's throne.
Now an election result may buy us more time. Any proof texts, apart from Dr T's Kenyan Prophecy?
"A Proud Arrogant Haughty Willie"
Has anyone in the COG ever met any other kind of Apostle?
Remember the forumula:
Tell them what brilliant person you were in the past:
1. Apostle Paul-Pharisee of Pharisee
2. Dave Pack-Going to Annapolis, brilliant student,
3. Rod Meredith-Golden Gloves Champ
4. Bill Dankenbring-Two or three articles in EVERY issue of PT/GN each time
5. HWA-Brilliant advertising man
Then tell them how terrible you are.
1. Apostle Paul- The least of the Apostles, wretched man that I am. (but end with telling them you labored harder than they all.)
2. Dave Pack--hmm, hasn't said anything yet.
3. Rod Meredith--hmm, "I have never committed a MAJOR sin in my life"
4 HWA-"This burned out hunk of junk."
Next, tell them how God called them in an unusual way
1. Apostle Paul-Knock me off my ass with voices and bright lights or called from the womb depending on who you believe.
2. Dave Pack-Filtered me through four COG's and was the best demon out caster in the church.
3. HWA-my wife challenged me and I spent days in the library. (Most spend years to do a good job however)
4. Bill Dankenbring-I spent three years on Formosa studying the Bible like Paul spent three years in Arabia. (boy that's a convincer)
Next they mention how good it would be you to join them and support them as the true belief.
Then they yell at you for considering any other beliefs
Then they remind you how "when cursed, we bless and curse not."
Then they curse someone
They get you to spend you life seeing Jesus just around the corner, the bend or over the next mountain.
Then they get older and notice a day with God is like a thousand years to us.
Then they forget to counsel with others on continuity of the work and die
Then all hell breaks loose and we get to read all about it in The Journal and Ambassador Watch.
Then Ambassador Watch breeds a dozen more sites and we all start calling each other names and judging each others experience in WCG just as we used to.
And then we have to wonder if we, of all people have learned anything or just are reinventing the wheel of intolerance and denying others their experiences in life.
Yes, Dankenbring is merely parroting the same old clichés ad infinitum that have made the COG's infamous for their "prophetic insights."
The amazing thing is that he, along with a host of other failed prophecy hucksters like him, still, after all their embarrassing failures, have managed to garner a sizable audience of gullible folks willing to send in 10% of their incomes, at least enough for the prophecy gurus to make a reasonably good living off of.
I remember when Jimmy Carter was elected back in 1976, and Church members earnestly speculated that his administration would usher in the tribulation. Every American presidential election seems to bring out the prophecy speculators in COGland. I also recall as well when Ronald Reagan was elected as the 40th president of the United States, and members got all excited that he would be the LAST president (40 being the biblical number of trial and test, etc.).
I used to be in Spokesman’s Club with William Dankenbring for several years back in the mid-1980’s out at Pasadena, and always got the impression that he was frustrated that his genius wasn’t recognized, that he was always trying to be seen as a great mind, yet constantly thwarted in his attempts.
Massive ARROGANCE plainly seems to be one of the primary character traits of wannabe prophecy gurus constantly trying to rise up among the COG’s. Humility just never seems to gain much of a foothold with these guys, especially in light of the fact that they have a prophetic batting average of zero! They just can’t ever openly admit that they have gotten it wrong 100% of the time.
I don't know whether a McCain/Palin victory would put off the "end time", but I certainly agree with his assessment that Obama's election would be disastrous. This is much more obvious to those of us who live IN the USA than those who are outside. To me, the greatest foreign policy problem with Obama (although there are many) is that Israel does not trust him.
I believe their mistrust is justified. They (Israel) live in fear of the imminent development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. And they do not believe that Obama will be willing to take the steps necessary to prevent Iran's ambitions from coming to fruition. I personally think that, if Obama wins on Nov. 4th, we can expect some kind of Israeli military action against Iran before Bush leaves office Jan. 20th.
Don't know if this coincides with Dankenbring's prophecies, but it will certainly stress many international relations.
Tucked safely away in storage I have copies of several of his books from the 1970s - I wouldn't contaminate my bookshelves with them these days.
There is a reason why William Dankenbring's Prophecy Flash magazine was known as Prophecy Trash.
It does not seem to occur to such guys that they have never been able to figure out anything, that God has never revealed anything to them, and that they are just telling lies in God's name.
I agree that it would be bad for Obama to become the president of the USA, so I wish William would have predicted that Obama would win. Then God, who delights in frustrating the words of the false prophets, would see to it that it never happens. Wet Willie should use his special reverse powers to save the nation.
My prayer is that IF Obama wins this election, his presidency will be the most prosperous (and I hope his investment in green technology would be large chunk of it), thus making the XCG splinter leaders in the doghouse one more time.
Sheesh. All Dankenbring did was trot out the standard HWA pre-election rhetoric from the '60s and '70s! Can the current leaders of Armstrongism ever, under any circumstances, even perhaps simple ones, do any genuine thinking of their own?
There is only one word to describe this: embarrassing. Reminiscent of the Scarecrow before he sees the Wizard!
BB
Larry wrote:
"To me, the greatest foreign policy problem with Obama (although there are many) is that Israel does not trust him."
Larry, I would agree with most of your assessment regarding Senator Obama - especially his stated willingness to talk with dictators without preconditions. Plus, a President Obama clearly would attempt to take America further down the road of socialism than it is already. But with respect to your comment above, I have reason to disagree.
Earlier this year I heard a very interesting lecture given by a former director of the Israeli Mossad (commonly understood to be the best intelligence agency in the world) about "The Iranian Threat" - and during the Q & A he was asked about his views regarding the American presidential election. I remember him saying that whether McCain or Obama is elected wouldn't really matter that much with respect to Israeli security. So he saw the election as pretty much a non-issue. At least that was his view.
Willonsius Dankenbreezius
68 AD
At this time, the most critical Caesoral coup lies ahead, with the lines clearly and sometimes not-so-clearly drawn. On the left is Servius Sulpicius Galba , a cult-like Messianic figure who advocates “change”—but the “change” includes the endorsement of the liberal left-wing agenda, higher pay for the Pretorian Guard, gay rights, sex education for the masses, demilitarization of the empire, scrapping of catapult technological research, and the clear weakening of Rome before her foreign enemies around the Empire.
On the right hand is a certified genuine lunatic, Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (15 December 37 – 9 June 68),[1] born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, a real Roman war hero who was imprisoned in the ‘Britania Best Western” for five years during the war , who learned his patriotism the “hard way,” by killing everyone who didn't agree with him. Which one should become Caesar?
This is critical time for the Triumph Church of God. Please Please don't say anything bad about the Romans. They will kill you. Screw the Jews, but DO NOT ANTAGONIZE THE ROMANS. Just pray about it please and remember Jesus words. "My Kingdom is not of theis world, else would my servants vote."
Please, no voting for Caesar, but we must admit, Saratonia Palinius is a hottie and God may strike Puublius McCannus down and woo hoo to that. Would you rather buy a few pretty clothes at inflated prices or have your children learn about sex! I thought so!
Pray brethren "thy will be done" and that it go well for us in these times. The Romans ain't a kidding with the swords and can crush our Gospel gonads like acorns on the driveway. This would not be God's will for his church or his Apostles...especially his Apostles.
Stay out of government brethren. We are not of this world. Viva John. Woo Hoo Sarah!
Err, I mean...
In Jesus Name, Thy Kingdom Come, dibs on Saratonia.
Willionius Dankenbreezius
Neutral Apostle Awaiting the Kingdom..
PS There be some that trouble you...and cut into my turf and income such as in Wadsworthium. So called Pillars...who they are makes no difference to me. I learned nothing form them. I was in Formosa remember? Send it in...here!
Why Obama would be "softer" with global thugs than McCain is beyond me. Just because he can actually speak in nuanced terms (something the current president is incapable of), and seems to actually want to think about foreign policy issues outside of kneejerk warmaking, doesn't, to me, mean he would be "weak". Although I wish we could be more like other democratic nations that don't feel the need to be the biggest, toughest, roughest boy on the global block. It's too damned expensive.
I don't give a whiff, of course, about Dankenbring's (or anyone else's) prophecies, having left that game decades ago. So I'm not into which candidate would usher us faster toward apocalypse.
But I would like to see the party of the administration that served up the lies about Iraq, that gave tacit (or perhaps more explicit) support of torture, that has sought to erode civil liberties, and that has lied almost continuously for nearly eight years, tossed out of the White House, and withered down in Congress. Although I for one pity whomever is inaugurated on January 20. Not a great time to lead a nation. But I'll go with Obama on this one.
Socialism under Obama? Man, that's been making the rounds over the last week! Look, we have plenty of socialism in the U.S. But if we're going to have it, I'd like it to be "socialism" for the people, not the rampant corporate socialism that plunders American taxpayers, and that has especially increased under the Bush administration. I would not count on McCain to change that. Obama probably won't, either, as the military-industrial complex has been ruling this country for decades at least, and they're hardly going to give up their power.
By the way, I saw Joe Biden here in Charlotte this morning. He sure looks a lot more trustworthy and far less wacko than Sarah Palin. Of course, her religious associations scare me. Being an ex-Armstrongist, I have the right to distrust anyone with ultra-fundamentalist, perhaps dominionist, views.
I pretty much distrust most politicians, at least above a certain level of power. So I have to figure just who will be the somewhat better of two less-than-stellar choices.
Leonardo spoke derisively of Obama's "stated willingness to talk with dictators without preconditions." That's kind of what we did in World War II, with Stalin. But of course, we had dubbed him Uncle Joe by then, and he was a friend, right?
It's also kind of what we did with Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. The only difference is that we sent Donnie Rumsfeld to do our bidding. But he was a good guy then, right? Not a dictator?
Then there's our support of the Shah of Iran and Musharraf, but they were good dictators, right? They were on our side, so preconditions didn't matter. Same with Pinochet. Now Ford didn't go down there for tea with Augusto, but we were awfully cozy. After all, better a non-communist dictator than a communist elected government, right?
You write, "Plus, a President Obama clearly would attempt to take America further down the road of socialism than it is already." It's the Bush administration that has added the most socialistic element of our government to date, mainly nationalized banks.
leonardo said, "I remember when Jimmy Carter was elected back in 1976, and Church members earnestly speculated that his administration would usher in the tribulation. Every American presidential election seems to bring out the prophecy speculators in COGland. I also recall as well when Ronald Reagan was elected as the 40th president of the United States, and members got all excited that he would be the LAST president (40 being the biblical number of trial and test, etc.)."
MY COMMENT - And, I remember in the late 1960s WCG ministers calling Richard Nixon an "end time President".
Richard
Dankenbring's reaction does cast some light on how Armstrongists would react to the current presidential race.
Will the Armstronigsts condemn Obama because he is a "Gentile" and Black at that, ostensibly a Canaanite. Or will they condemn the Republican ticket because there is a female VP. Which is worse: having Israel be ruled over by a "stranger" or a woman?
Apparently, a white woman is more acceptable than a black man. I have always believed that most closet BI adherents of the Armstrong type are closet racists. Racists first and sexist second. Some are not even in the closet but wear their bias proudly because they are only "being godly".
-- Neo
Amen Dennis!
"And then we have to wonder if we, of all people have learned anything or just are reinventing the wheel of intolerance and denying others their experiences in life."
No amount of name calling or fire and brimstone threatening will change anyone's mind.
We are all going to process the WCG experience differently, but that doesn't make us less human and less deserving of common courtesy and civil discourse.
Not to change the subject, but tonight I watched the new CBS series "11th Hour." The story featured a biotech corporation whose offices looked remarkably like the old Ambassador Auditorium and Hall of Administration. They even had some scenes in front of the repainted swans.
That's the first time I remember seeing the old Pasadena campus used as the location for a t.v. series episode since the late Bill Bixby's Incredible Hulk (or was I just imagining that?).
Thanks Gavin,
That "award" pendant was the funniest thing I've seen in awhile!
Oh, those prophesying knuckleheads.
I kind of want to ask them, "Do you want the end, or don't you?- or are you just wanting to vent about people you don't like?"
Or maybe their position is, "I want the end to come, but I'd like time for a couple more ice cream cones first- thus also agreeith the Lord."
~Mel
Jared,
When I lived out there Pasadena was (and probably still is) very friendly with the movie industry - and earnestly courted them, so a lot of motion pictures and TV shows are filmed there around the city at various locations.
Every once in awhile on TV I spot a scene filmed either on or near the old AC campus.
In the early '90's I remember being the representative for the Ambassador Auditorium once when 20th Century Fox was filming "The Beverly Hillbillies" (the 1993 film, not the old TV series). They filmed for three or four long days in the old Imperial Gymnasium - it was the scene where Elly May Clampett manhandled some macho kid on her high school wresting team, which only appeared in the final film for maybe a minute or two.
I distinctly remember the actress who played Elly May, a gal named Erika Eleniak, walking right in front of me, which I must admit was quite a treat. It probably took a few minutes for me to get my thoughts together enough to wipe the drool from off my chin and pick up my jaw off the floor. She was one extremely attractive gal!
But yeah, if you look closely you can see a lot of scenes filmed for movies and TV in Pasadena environs.
Jared,
I watched that show with my wife last night and saw the same thing you did. I was a little stunned. It wasn't the first time I saw it. It was also in the Tom Hanks movie "That Thing You Do" from back in the late 90's.
today's Washington Post shows how much the Churches of God are a part of the political movement supported by the Evangelicals.
"Palin, Dobson and GOP GOD
Sarah Palin's 20-minute conversation with Christian Right leader James Dobson shed little light on the campaign, but it did remove any doubts about how Dobson's God will be voting on Election Day.
During the interview, broadcast Wednesday, Palin took another shot at the "mainstream media" -- which apparently in her mind doesn't include Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, James Dobson, et. al. "I have to have that faith that God's going to help us get that message out there," Palin said.
Dobson gushed: "My goodness, if our audience is any indication, they're getting it. There are millions of people praying for you and for Sen. McCain. It's always risky to kind of politicize your prayer life, but there are issues here that are more important to me than my life."
After the interview, Dobson continued talking to his audience about the "hatred" Palin has encountered, especially "in the newspapers up there." He didn't specify what he meant by "up there," although cities north of Dobson's Focus on the Family headquarters include Denver, Cheyenne, Wyo., and Billings, Mont.
Dobson recalled the moment in 2000 when presidential candidate George W. Bush named Jesus Christ as his favorite political philosopher. "That created hatred for him (Bush, not Jesus) for months and months and it's one of the reasons they despise him so much today because he had the courage to speak the name of Christ," Dobson said.
"It's the offense of the cross and it's one of the reasons there's such hostility tor Sarah Palin, because she is an unabashed Christian."
Last time I checked, Dr. Dobson, all four candidates on the major party presidential tickets are unabashed Christians. All four have had the "courage" to speak the name of Christ. Aren't all four deserving of our Christian prayers and appreciation?
"
LARRY said:
"They (Israel) live in fear of the imminent development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. And they do not believe that Obama will be willing to take the steps necessary to prevent Iran's ambitions from coming to fruition."
Well why don't they (Israel) remove themselves from the Palestinian lands they occupy and there will be no more problem - and no more 911 type attacks for us - and no more billions in foreign aid propping up the state of Israel--this would make available billions to spend domestically instead
Jared,
I don't know about campus/HQ scenes on TV, but the front of the Hall of Adminstration was shown for a few seconds in the Tommy Lee Jones/Robert Downey Jr. flick, "U.S. Marshalls", dating from sometime back in the '90s.
Tkach's $wiss Banker wrote:
"Well why don't they (Israel) remove themselves from the Palestinian lands they occupy and there will be no more problem - and no more 911 type attacks for us - and no more billions in foreign aid propping up the state of Israel--this would make available billions to spend domestically instead."
Dude, you really need to read some history, as the above statement is so blatantly false it would take a book to adequately respond to.
In essence, you seem to be of the “Islamic terrorism is basically caused by the foreign policies of the United States” school of thought, or rather NON-thought, because though it’s popular, especially in European and American media, it completely ignores the long history and plainly stated aims of Islam dating back to the 7th century A.D.
Why not try educating your mind so you can at least make some intelligent, fact-based comments?
How about reading FUTURE JIHAD: TERRORIST STRATEGIES AGAINST THE WEST by Walid Phares to start with. Phares is from the Middle East, speaks fluent Arabic, and has testified before the United States Senate. In this excellent book he provides a deep history of Islam, and documents that from the very beginning it was an extremely violent religious/fascist ideology whose aim was, is and always will be to conquer the entire world for their ancient moon-god Allah. Why do you think their banner is a crescent moon with a SWORD? Because they're a "religion of peace?"
And guess what? This strategy was set CENTURIES BEFORE the United States of America or the modern state of Israel ever came into existence.
So why don't you try THINKING next time about some basic facts of history BEFORE making another uneducated comment.
Ah,my Son, may Allah bless you abundantly all the days of your life,and may your date palms flourish,your oases never run dry and your camels be well watered.
Here is a humble Kiwi who suddenly finds himself with Arab relations most definitely middle-class,resident in Israel,Greece,Tunisia and Kuwait.I wonder if there are any oil wells?
I would have to agree that America's foreign policies have little to do with Islamic expansion..some forget the history of Europe.Yes,that Iranian moon-god Allah is a worry.
Jorgheinz
In essence, you seem to be of the “Islamic terrorism is basically caused by the foreign policies of the United States” school of thought..."
Not Islamic Terrorism, but perhaps Islamic Terrorist Attacks Directed Against The US. It is not ignoring history to look critically into the root causes of Islamic attacks on the US. If we fail to do so, then we as a nation are very foolish.
Why did Osama Bin Laden order the 9/11 attacks? Because we are so "free?" Because we are hedonistic?
Another way to look at it is why didn't he attack Denmark or Sweden?
Paul Ray
Or you might consider the possibility that the world's largest Satanic cult, Islam, is at war with modern-day Israel. Hmmm...
I probably wouldn't have to explain what that means to a single person reading this post.
"Another way to look at it is why didn't he attack Denmark or Sweden?"
EXACTLY ! Or $witzerland for that matter ? Because these countries are wise and non-provocative in their foreign policy. These right-wing-Bush-voting-nutjobs scare me.
A Polish driver who was too sure of his GPS road navigation device ended up neck-deep in a lake after ignoring road signs warning of a dead-end ahead, Polish police said overnight.
"The man took a road that was closed a year ago when the area was flooded to make an artificial lake serving as a water reservoir - he ignored three road signs warning of a dead-end,"
Can't think of a better analogy in following self professed GPS (God's Prophetic Schnooks). When your eyes and common sense are screaming "NO", some still insist on following them right into the drink.
"Or you might consider the possibility that the world's largest Satanic cult, Islam, is at war with modern-day Israel. Hmmm...
Too bad we continue to fund not only Israel, but her enemies, and most importantly, tell her how and when she can defend herself instead of letting Israel act as a sovereign nation. Why does Israel have to ask us whether she can bomb Iran??
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1
Paul Ray
Why didn't he just say "uppity", like he was obviously thinking?
Can't have no uppity negroes telling us fine Christian white folk what to do.
Morons.
(That was sarcasm, btw, I don't care if he's black, white, or hot pink)
FWIW, I'm currently reading Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror, 1801–1805. Of course, this war was with the Barbary pirates, when Israel was still part of the Ottoman Empire.
Dennis wrote:
"When your eyes and common sense are screaming "NO", some still insist on following them right into the drink."
Actually, Dennis, I think it would be more accurate to say that MANY (rather than just some) insist on following the ideology rather than common sense – certainly this seems to be the case within the context of the COG’s, and most other branches of fundamentalism.
But, of course, we all realize that this is exactly the much sought-after intellectual consequence of such religions: DON’T think, DON’T trust your rational mind, DON’T listen to your own judgment, DON’T expand or rise above your current field of vision, DON’T pay attention to all the obvious warning signals screaming for your attention both from without and within - after all, we don't want anybody to "walk by sight" (or any other sense) but by FAITH alone, i.e., the ideology the Church teaches you.
Personally, I have strong reasons to believe this is why suicide was so widespread in the old WCG (a higher rate than in the normal population) – part and parcel of the ideology that the hierarchy was always teaching was that people should repress or ignore these inner signals, that such were "the invisible broadcastings of the Devil" etc.
I’ve observed (and have personally experienced) the many unfortunate consequences of taking such teachings literally and applying them to one’s everyday life in this world.
"Personally, I have strong reasons to believe this is why suicide was so widespread in the old WCG (a higher rate than in the normal population)"
I think it is because Armstrong attracted a lot of crazies to begin with. Most WCGers weren't very normal.
"not many wise men now are called, not many mentally normal brethren."
"....part and parcel of the ideology that the hierarchy was always teaching was that people should repress or ignore these inner signals, that such were "the invisible broadcastings of the Devil" etc."
I agree and take it up a notch. It is the Bible itself that requires people to leave their common sense behind and trust everything from the voices in the heads of others to finding comfort and instruction in weird, impossible and impractical stories and examples.
We have no problem believing that some rather misty figure called Moses lead millions out of Egypt with no historical or archaeological proof found that this ever happened. He talks to burning bushes, he builds a snake on a pole to heal the snake bitten Israelites, he murders 3000 for douting he'd return with the commandments, one of which was "do no murder." No problem. We just say, "ok, it's in the Bible, must be true."
The COG's love the prophets. All strange and mentally challenged individuals. They lay seige to frying pans, lay on their sides naked for a year or more, cook food with their own dung, see visions and hear voices....no problem...must be from God.
I dare say that many of the OT prophets and NT characters had some form of definable mental illness that in another age looked like a mysterious connection to God. Luke gives Paul all the symptoms of Temporal Lobe epilepsy in his Damascus road conversion. This is Luke, "the Physician" Paul credentials himself from the womb like Jeremiah and Jesus and knows nothing of Luke's story.
Whoever wrote Revelation writes as if in the last stages of schizophrenia.
I think we can see that some of the main leaders in religion to day and closer to home for our experience, some of the COG prophets and Apostles are probably mentally unstable as defined by modern psychiatry.
A man with a mental illness can hide well in a ministry. His quirkiness, authoritarianism and pushy dominance can seem like obedience , faith and guidance from "God." It seems oh so Old Testamentish. It's an illness the disquise of righteousness. Many religious, organizational and governmental leaders are there because these types can rise so well on the backs and by deception of others.
What if the major tenents of our religions were the by product of the misunderstood and undiagnosed mentally ill?
The writers of Matthew, Luke and John did not edit out the embarassing comment in Mark about Jesus mom and brothers coming to get him and take him back home "because he was beside himself" for nothing.
Anonymous 8:34 wrote:
"I think it is because Armstrong attracted a lot of crazies to begin with. Most WCGers weren't very normal."
I can't fully deny that, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "normal" - as many "normal" people, perhaps the vast majority, just sleepwalk through life in a mental stupor, muddling along, never thinking deeply or living fully or maximizing their potentials along the way. I have witnessed many such folks whose primary goal in life seems to be to finally reach their end and die, just to be done with what they perceive as the burden of existence. Pretty tragic.
But my personal experience in the WCG was mixed: yes, no doubt there was the "loony brigade" - sad individuals who, for a variety of reasons, just seemed like lost misfits in the universe, and who most likely would not have fit in anywhere.
But, on the other hand, some of the finest, most genuine folks I've ever met in my life have been Church members. Solid, stable people who could always be relied upon, who raised capable kids, lived decent lives, etc.
And my experience especially out at AC Pasadena was that, once again, there were the obvious social climbers and status seekers, mixed in with some very sincere, energetic and intelligent young people who truly were asking "the big questions" of life and seeking for answers.
Gluteus Capitus wrote:
"I dare say that many of the OT prophets and NT characters had some form of definable mental illness that in another age looked like a mysterious connection to God."
Agreed. And indeed what modern societies now consider to be mental disorders were in fact looked upon as some form of "supernatural gift" in many ancient cultures.
But I think you hit upon some very insightful observations, though they would be considered grounds for figurative "stoning" by many fundamentalists, including COGer's.
Your comments were confined to the Old and New Testaments, but what about "The Prophet and Apostle of Islam?" - I mean, here's a charismatic guy who by any definition was a serious mental case: a mass murderer, an easily offended hot-head, a pedophile, etc. Yet this character is seen as “the ideal man” in many places around the world today.
Such can be said of many other religious gurus both ancient and modern.
I’ve come to see that life truly is a testing ground - not to see how much we can outdo each other at groveling at the feet of some capricious, angry, temperamental, childish and totally invisible God quite obviously made in the image of Near-east ancient men — but to see how HONESTLY and SINCERELY we deal with the facts of reality as we discover and learn about them during the course of our lives.
And this includes putting the "revelations" of religious hucksters to some serious and rigorous testing, which for all too long has been avoided by many out of an unearned respect for a person's "faith."
A Power or Force or Being or Cosmic Intelligence may truly exist, but if or when such a discovery is made, I suspect such a One (or Ones) will be light-years BEYOND the infantile concepts of highly superstitious ancient men, and truly worthy of our respect.
Gluteus Capitus,
That's what is known as hitting the nail on the head.
"It is the Bible itself that requires people to leave their common sense behind and trust everything..."
And that occurs only after a person comes to believe in imaginary beings.
Paul Ray
Paul Ray,
When you can satisfactorily explain the existence of the universe and sentient life without the concurrent belief in "imaginary beings", then your arguments will hold water. Right now, they do not.
Larry, please explain how Jesus is on your side, in the various things you say.
Am I missing something?
Heck, I like to think Jesus is on my side, but I'm less sure than you.
"When you can satisfactorily explain the existence of the universe and sentient life without the concurrent belief in "imaginary beings"..."
You are assuming that imaginary beings are responsible for the existence of the universe and sentient life. That's like asking me to explain how those toys got under the Christmas tree in order to justify my disbelief in Santa Claus.
Paul Ray
Larry,
When you can satisfactorily explain the existence of God (but nothing else) without the concurrent belief that, "well, He has just always existed," then your arguments may hold water. Right now, they do not.
Anonymous 8:13, what an interesting request. Can anyone actually KNOW?
All that I can say categorically is that my faith is not "blind and unthinking" as leonardo would have you believe.
I think I can answer this, but the answer is not succinct. It is based on my life experience and logic. I personally believe that many of the doctrines of Christianity could be circumstantially proven based on logic alone. That is a diatribe that would be way too extensive for this board.
There is a tendency on this board to write off faith in God as the rantings of mental illness or temporal lobe epilepsy. But, I am probably the most educated person who posts here, (I have a doctorate in the biological sciences from one of the world's most prestigious universities) I am ruthlessly objective, and I don't buy it.
There are just WAY too many events throughout history and in my own life that would have to be chalked up to "coincidence", to negate the notion of Divine guidance. That is the briefest analysis I can give in answer to your query.
An addendum: When I was ten years old (not brought up in any church btw) I pleaded with God to allow me to understand Him. I believe He answered that prayer to the extent that it is possible.
"But, I am probably the most educated person who posts here, (I have a doctorate in the biological sciences from one of the world's most prestigious universities) I am ruthlessly objective, and I don't buy it."
You are not ruthlessly objective.
What is your degree in, if I may ask?
Paul Ray
Paco and Paul Ray,
Your points are well-taken, but...we (like the proverbial toys) are HERE. You are faced with two choices to explain this: either we are here due to Divine Providence and design, or we are not. And if we are not, then our existence is an accident of nature. You really have no other alternative explanations.
Through logic, an understanding of science, and mathematics, we can pretty much eliminate the second option. I will defer to my old friend Sherlocke Holmes (talking to Watson) for a conclusion:
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
This is elementary.
"There are just WAY too many events throughout history and in my own life that would have to be chalked up to "coincidence", to negate the notion of Divine guidance."
The problem is that in life, coincidences do happen- to believers, pagans, satan-worshippers, even atheists. Sometimes these coincidences are surprising and mysterious. But they are nothing more than coincidences. And I am willing to bet that every one of the events you chalk up as proof of the "Divine" are in no way out of the reach of reality. Every one of those events can be explained as a strange coincidence. Isn't it interesting that every Christian on the planet has so many of these incredible events that they ascribe to god- yet not one, not a single one of these events- can't be explained as anything other than a supernatural miracle. For instance, we have thousands of stories of miraculous healings of terminal brain cancer, yet not ONE instance of a regenerated limb. Thousands of instances where someone is "pushed" back/foward from toppling off a building or over train tracks but not ONE instance of a person lifted into the air, levitating, to be safely deposited elsewhere. And ect. And this is where the Christian is forced to start the Excuse Machine For God up for canned answers.
If subjective personal experiences are your rationale for the existence of God, then by the same logic Heaven is crowded with all manner of gods and goddesses and devils and even Cthullu. Hell, let's throw in the Great Pumpkin.
I find your "logic" to be anything but objective and ruthless. I find it lazy.
Paul Ray
"Through logic, an understanding of science, and mathematics, we can pretty much eliminate the second option"
Would you care to explain just how science repudiates the second point?
And what makes you so sure that there are only two options: God and No God? Why God? Why not aliens?
Paul Ray
Paul Ray,
There you go again, being dismissive. You remind me of many of my scientific colleagues. If they don’t accept God as Creator, they don’t have to deal with all the ramifications thereof. I am fine with that, by the way. And, you are entitled to your opinion as well.
But, some of the coincidences I was speaking of, are in regard to the complexities of life itself. Some things ARE quantifiable. Time is measurable. The number of stars and potentially habitable planets in the universe can be surmised, within a range. The laws of physics and chemistry, as they apply to life, are now known; and they do not vary in this universe. (There may be, and probably are…other universes, but that is a topic for another time.) The frequency and variation of fortuitous and deleterious mutations of DNA are quantifiable, within a range. Biochemical processes are known quantities. The attraction of the idea that life could have come about as an accident of biochemistry, dates back to the decades before we became aware of the complexities of microorganisms. It was assumed, a century ago, that we would find that smaller organisms were much less complex. But, as we have explored the microscopic world, we have discovered a level of complexity far beyond expectations, so much so that we have had to revise our thinking about the origin of life itself. Microorganisms are small, but not simple. They are elegant biochemical factories with amazing intricacies. This changes everything. This screams for a designer.
Let me give you a reasonable analogy. Let’s say a human is a 747, and a bacterium is a Timex watch. Is the watch smaller than the airplane? Yep. Is it simpler? Yep. Is it much simpler? Yep. Is it simple enough to have come about by accident? Nope.
And no matter how far down (or up) the phylogenetic ladder we go, we still encounter the same dilemma. You want to call that “coincidence”, go right ahead. But, you are in denial if you do. The energy curves required to accidentally create life simply violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is indisputable.
I make my living dealing with facts, and REAL probabilities. I am ruthlessly objective. And the probability of sentient life coming into existence by accident in this universe is very, very close to zero. And then, if you factor in the likelihood of survival, it is probably much, much less than zero. Now, those are facts. You may not like them, but you are stuck with them. Many in the scientific community understand all this intuitively, but prefer to just ignore it. Primarily, it is because they do not know what to DO with this information. They do not see the “religious” community as having answers. (I agree with them there)
I am fortunate in being able to reconcile both sides. I apologize to the readers for the length of this response, but I just could not let Paul’s challenge go unanswered. And I have mentioned only the scientific arguments against coincidence, there are logical ones as well.
"If they don’t accept God as Creator, they don’t have to deal with all the ramifications thereof."
Why should they accept it? Why should they accept the idea of a supernatural entity who created everything via divine fiat when there is absolutely no proof whatsoever?
And what ramifications? That we can't explain everything? Gasp!
"It was assumed, a century ago, that we would find that smaller organisms were much less complex. But, as we have explored the microscopic world, we have discovered a level of complexity far beyond expectations, so much so that we have had to revise our thinking about the origin of life itself."
Let's see what Muller had to say about this in *1918*, before we discovered all this (gasp) complexity, or for that matter, DNA:
'... thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..."
Muller, H. J. (1918) "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499
In 1918, a almost a century ago, the complexity of life was taken for granted. Later discovery only confirmed this.
"They are elegant biochemical factories with amazing intricacies. This changes everything. This screams for a designer."
No it doesn't. It changes nothing and the only people who see "design" here are those who believe in the existence of imaginary beings, and especially those who believe that their particular imaginary being created everthing and so will reject any idea to the contrary. Just because you find the alternative incredulous doesn't make it so.
"Let me give you a reasonable analogy. Let’s say a human is a 747and a bacterium is a Timex watch. Is the watch smaller than the airplane? Yep. Is it simpler? Yep. Is it much simpler? Yep. Is it simple enough to have come about by accident? Nope."
Jesus, man. Your whole argument is just regurgitating Hoyle and Behe, the Dynamic Duo?? Get thee to the literature.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
"I am ruthlessly objective."
No you aren't. You are in denial.
"And the probability of sentient life coming into existence by accident in this universe is very, very close to zero. And then, if you factor in the likelihood of survival, it is probably much, much less than zero. Now, those are facts. You may not like them, but you are stuck with them."
And? Improbability proves that your God created everything by magic? How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion?
"And I have mentioned only the scientific arguments against coincidence, there are logical ones as well."
Wow. There is a God and he (flash! bang!) created everything. How do we know? Well...er... you see, any other explanation is improbable, so there.
I hope you don't hold a faculty position.
Paul Ray
For those of you that have access to Nature, here is a good article on "design."
"From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella"
Mark J. Pallen1 and Nicholas J. Matzke2
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html
Gavin,
I apologize for diverting the conversation off on a tangent. This thread was about Dankenbring and prophecy. Paul Ray has pretty much proved the point that people will not see what they do not want to see.
Obama supporters have proven this as well.
"Paul Ray has pretty much proved the point that people will not see what they do not want to see"
Oh no, not at all. If I see a man rise from the dead after three days of rotting in the ground, if I see the Red Sea part, if I see fire come down from the sky and devour pagan priests, if I see a married couple instantaneously die when they withhold money from their church, when I see a man walk on water, then, then, my friend, I will acknowledge that a god exist, for then I will have proof. (Which is much more than I can say for you.) Until that time, I can't see what is not before me.
Did you get a chance to read the Nature article?
Paul Ray
Continuing on from the Shadows discussion, it's pretty clear that "Larry" and Bill Hohmann would get along just famously. Don't think Larry considers us equal human beings, either.
"By their fruits shall you know them."
Anonymous 4:05/Paul Ray wrote:
“Why did Osama Bin Laden order the 9/11 attacks? Because we are so "free?" Because we are hedonistic? Another way to look at it is why didn't he attack Denmark or Sweden?”
swiss tkach banker wrote:
“EXACTLY ! Or $witzerland for that matter ? Because these countries are wise and non-provocative in their foreign policy. These right-wing-Bush-voting-nutjobs scare me.”
First of all, “Swiss,” I didn’t vote for Bush.
Second, the reason these fanatics hate America so much has less to do with America’s past or present foreign policy (which I often disagree with) than it has to do with the fact that America represents economically successful, freedom-loving democracies like much of Europe – and thus have been and will continue to be the most significant roadblock to the expansion of an Islamic world state.
Both of you would be foolish indeed to think that once radical Islam would destroy the state of Israel that they would stop there. Your countries are next, somewhere down the line, wherever you live, because Islamo-fascism does not stop with Israel. There’s a common saying heard everywhere around the Middle East: “First comes Saturday, then followed by Sunday.” Meaning, first we eliminate the Jews, then the Christian nations come next (at least nations Islamists view as “Christian” – primarily the free democracies of western Europe).
Especially you, “Swiss”, are you so incredibly naïve as to actually believe Switzerland will be protected long-range because of their current “non-provocative” policies? If you do, then you are truly a fool in this area.
If you want to further challenge me on these essential points, you are free to do so, but you’d better both make sure you have your current and historical facts ready – which are clearly lacking in your above statements to date.
Larry boasted:
"...I am probably the most educated person who posts here, (I have a doctorate in the biological sciences from one of the world's most prestigious universities) I am ruthlessly objective..."
Larry, I have to tell you, a large number of mental "red warning flags" started waving frantically in my mind after I read your statement above.
If indeed you are "the most educated person who posts here" on this site, then your style of logic and argumentation certainly is NOT - and seems extremely deficient for someone of such high academic standards.
Have you ever read Dr. Victor Stenger's book HAS SCIENCE FOUND GOD? Perhaps you should.
But assuming you truly DO have the academic credentials you claim, still, this is not a substitute for sound, clear, logical, objective reasoning - which you have consistently not demonstrated in any of your posts here.
Also, could you briefly explain in simple words what the Krebs Cycle is?
Larry wrote:
"I personally believe that many of the doctrines of Christianity could be circumstantially proven based on logic alone. That is a diatribe that would be way too extensive for this board."
Well, if you truly can do this, Larry, then you would be the FIRST Christian in history to do so.
I'll be awaiting your response.
Well, it might be fun to party with and have a Bible Study with Larry and Bill. Much better than partying with a bunch of bitter atheists whose only pleasure in life is quoting OT scriptures depicting the warlike nature Yahweh displayed while defending His chosen people.
Sooner or later, faith has to come into these arguments. Atheists want to see limbs regenerated, believers would like to see the atheists create life in their bathtubs from enzymes and electrolytes. Atheists mock the afterlife, and talk about how Christians are so hypocritical anyway, and believers admonish the atheists to realize that their logic and rhetoric will be of no value on judgment day.
You've got to have a lot of faith to be an atheist, that you're not accountable. That's what it's all about. Most atheists I know would have no problem at all with God, if only He didn't have the bad habit of insisting on some sort of behavioral code.
Christians will share that there are many blessings associated with living a Godly life today, and the fact that they don't have to worry where they are going next life removes quite a bit of stress.
Paul Ray wrote:
"If subjective personal experiences are your rationale for the existence of God, then by the same logic Heaven is crowded with all manner of gods and goddesses and devils..."
Paul, we may not see eye-to-eye on other issues, but I think you hit the nail right on the head here with your above statement.
I've had MANY serious and lengthy discussions with Christian believers (the uneducated, the highly educated, and pretty much everyone in between), both with those within and outside of the COG's.
And ultimately - after all their "logic" is whittled down and shown to be, well, not so very logical after all, and their "facts" shown to be not so very factual - they finally are forced to arrive at and expose the ACTUAL source of most (if not all) of their beliefs: personal subjectivity and questionable interpretations of various events and mysterious occurrences in their lives. This, along side of almost complete ignorance of the science of probability.
I used to “reason” in the same way – until I finally had to say to myself: “Who are you kidding here?”
But the problem is that this kind of thinking can be used to support belief in all kinds of historical gods and goddesses - so which one(s) was guiding the believers? Yahweh? Allah? Marduk? Zeus? Ahura Mazda?
For it’s plain to see from past experience that the vast majority of people attribute such “divine interventions” to whatever God(s) their cultural environment happens to believe in at any given time or place in history, i.e., the one(s) the believer is already familiar with. And isn’t it surprising that this particular deity (or deities) happens to be the one (or ones) they conclude to be the “true” God (or Gods)?
I’m open-minded here, and more than willing to listen to what Larry has to say, but for someone of such (self-proclaimed) astoundingly impressive academic credentials, he sure can’t seem to articulate his arguments very persuasively at all.
Larry wrote:
"There you go again, being dismissive. You remind me of many of my scientific colleagues. If they don’t accept God as Creator, they don’t have to deal with all the ramifications thereof. I am fine with that, by the way. And, you are entitled to your opinion as well."
But, Larry, YOU are the one that is being equally dismissive here. You've totally failed to make your point with any cogency or rigour or tightly-reasoned argument.
I honestly don't think I could count as many as five statements you've made in the past that I can sincerely say, "Well, now that makes sense, he's got a good point there."
So how can you make these kinds of foolish statements I qouted above?
YOU are the one who repeatedly, in the course of many different blog topics on this site, makes all kinds of indefensible ASSERTIONS completely unsupported by facts, evidence or logic.
And then you imperiously "grant" others the right to their "opinion?"
And by the way, I would be quite interested in what subject within biology you did your doctoral dissertation on.
Larry wrote:
"The energy curves required to accidentally create life simply violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is indisputable."
What your above statement indisputably proves is that you have very little REAL understanding of the science of thermodynamics.
This field is frequently recruited (along with quantum physics) with incredible abandon by creationists of all stripes and colors, as well as in most of the claptrap written by New Age authors.
Larry, I beg you, for your own good, please read HAS SCIENCE FOUND GOD?
MANY (though not all) of the arguments you use are addressed by Dr. Stenger, who is a physicist. I can’t say I agree with every thing or every conclusion he arrives at, but I found the book to be very eye-opening.
Larry wrote:
"Now, those are facts. You may not like them, but you are stuck with them. Many in the scientific community understand all this intuitively, but prefer to just ignore it."
Larry, those are YOUR extremely limited interpretations of a few highly selective facts, and this is yet another pretty clear indication to me that you are NOT a legitimate scientist, either that, or you simply are making claims that far exceed your specific area of training or expertise.
I read extensively, and am very acquainted with scientific literature, and have deep discussions with those trained in scientific fields, and what you've been stating in your response to Paul Ray is a bunch of bunk, for the most part. It's typical either/or thinking, and this is NOT scientific at all.
It's quite clear to me that you want to arrive at a particular conclusion - and thus cite and arrange facts conducive to this end.
Larry, I sincerely am willing to hear you out (and don't mind long responses if they clarify rather than obscure), but you are clearly in way over your head here, or at least that's what your statements indicate to me.
(I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your claimed level of education, especially because I know scientists are often not the very best communicators, but I’m proceeding with caution.)
Paul Ray,
I'm interested in reading that article you recommended, and thank you for mentioning it.
By the way, I have met both Michael Behe and Nick Matzke - and had the chance to talk to Dr. Behe at some length once, and ask him some questions. And though I very much like him on a personal level (he's a very likable, friendly, approachable, and genuinely humble fellow from what I could tell), still I was rather disappointed by his obvious evasions to my questions. His original book (Darwin’s Black Box), as you probably know, was seriously out-of-date by the time it was first published back in 1996. So much so that the university he teaches at (Lehigh) had to eventually put out a disclaimer regarding his ideas on their website.
Several years ago I attended a three-day Intelligent Design seminar, and heard Dr. Behe on a panel discussion with Jonathan "Icons of Evolution" Wells and some other prominent IDer's.
Sadly, I also witnessed when Nick Matzke was ready to ask what was to be a controversial question of Behe during the Q&A session, when suddenly the moderator quite blatantly jumped in and stopped the Q & A session prematurely right as Matzke was about ready to question Dr. Behe. I don’t blame Dr. Behe for this, but very clearly the moderator (a professor at Bible Institute of Los Angeles, where the seminar was held) intervened to protect his friend from public embarrassment. I believe Matzke was working on his doctorate at the time.
So much for open discussion and intellectual honesty amongst at least some of the proponents of ID.
Yet another discussion devolves into a back and forth between fundamentalist creationists and fundamentalist evolutionists.
Chances are very good that you are both wrong.
If you can see lightning, hear thunder, and can read at a 9th grade level or better, the biblical story of creation is clearly NOT supported by archeology, geology, or biology.
If you are honest with yourself, the same can just about be said for evolutionists, except I would give them the benefit of a 12th grade level. Science SHOULD be the search for FACT. Sadly, biological sciences (and several others) have become belief by consensus. Proof is no longer necessary (Like religions) as long as you have enough scientists in agreement with your theories.
The multitude of religions out there exist, not because they have proof that their beliefs are valid, but because enough people agree with enough of what somebody is dishing out to have a consensus on belief. That is no way of finding truth, but is a great way to be among like minded folk. That is exactly what the scientific community has done with the search for the origin(s) of life and explanation for the diversity of life. First there was Darwinian theory...but that hit a snag then there was a number of scientists that put their 'faith' in Modern Synthesis, and then others in Punctuated Equilibrium, and now others have their consensus in Post-Modern Synthesis.
Just like all the different religions these fundamentalist evolutionists start out with a conclusion and then stack the evidence for their pet theories.
It is like the dark ages all over again. If you don't believe what is popular in religion or science then you are both stupid and a heretic of the worst sort. Larry, Paul, and Corky (as well as you know who on his own site) are perfect examples of this type of a for us or against us kind of attitude. This is not the road to finding FACT but can lead to things like being stoned as a heretic or losing your job for questioning the *current theory* in great favor among the academics.
Proof NEEDS to be required for belief gentlemen.
Don't tell me snakes talk without demonstrable proof.
Don't tell me the bible is literally true without the proof.
Don't tell me evolution / abiogenesis is true without demonstrable proof.
Please don't respond with links to your favorite religious site or evolutionist site with that kowtows to your particular flavor of 'theology' or evolutionary 'science'. I've been all over many of them.
I don't think any of your arguments hold water. Time to go back to the basics; in order to pass a test in school or college, I had to *prove* my answers were correct.
Facts are not represented as "4 out of 5 Dentists agree that Sudso is the best toothpaste". That is consensus, not science at work.
I am not a scientist or a theologian so don't bother asking. I am just a project manager that realized that if code for a software application is missing even the smallest piece of information (i.e. Proof), the program doesn't work properly and at times, not at all.
You've got to have a lot of faith to be an atheist, that you're not accountable. That's what it's all about. Most atheists I know would have no problem at all with God, if only He didn't have the bad habit of insisting on some sort of behavioral code."
One. Atheism requires no faith- that is unless you are willing to admit that rejecting the existence of Thor, Vishnu, Allah, or The Great Pumpkin also requires faith. Do you? Do you have to have some sort of faith in your rejection of The Great Pumpkin? Is your lack of belief in Thor a "faith?" Is your rejection of purple flying unicorns a "faith?"
As far as the personality of God goes, it doesn't color my acceptance of his existence. He either exists, or he doesn't. If the genocidal, psychotic God of the Bible is real, then he is real, whether I wish it so or not. Confronted with the evidence, I (unlike Christians) would be forced to admit his existence whether I agreed with his methods or not. It has everything to do with proof, not perceptions.
Now whether I would bend my knee to such an evil god is another matter; I'll take the Lake O' Fire rather than worship the basket case that is Jehovah.
Paul Ray
"First there was Darwinian theory...but that hit a snag then there was a number of scientists that put their 'faith' in Modern Synthesis, and then others in Punctuated Equilibrium, and now others have their consensus in Post-Modern Synthesis."
And whom all agree that evolution happened, but disagree on exactly how it happened.
I applaud you for at least rejecting fairy tales, Charlie. That's good enough for me. It shows that you can think critically. By the way, do you happen to believe in a supernatural being who may or may not have "created" everything? Just curious.
Paul Ray
"Second, the reason these fanatics hate America so much has less to do with America’s past or present foreign policy (which I often disagree with) than it has to do with the fact that America represents economically successful, freedom-loving democracies like much of Europe –
Leo, no one here will disagree with you that Islamo-Facists have a desire to convert the entire world over to their particular brand of theo-totalitarianism. But where we disagree is why they attacked us. According to you, the reason is that we are free, to boil it down. But look at much of Europe- hotbeds of liberal hedonism. Abortion loving, dope-smoking socialists with somewhat free markets. Why didn't they start with the Swiss? The Danish? The Swedes? They attacked us because we have stuck our phallus in their noses. I don't say this to excuse their actions by any means. It's just a fact. For the last one hundred years we have acted (for the most part with good intentions) as Rome- Pax Americana. It's ironic that we have become the same entity that the Founding Fathers took arms against- a world spanning empire seeking to bring democracy to the world.
I say we can defend ourselves against any foe with our top-notch military and arsenal of nukes without having to have our troops occupy 130 nations around the globe (how would you feel if the Chinese had military bases on our soil in the name of Chinese "national interests?"). Let's mind our own business and restore true liberty to all Americans (which we have lost)instead of trying to play the global teacher at recess- but remaining a terrible enemy to those that attack us.
Paul Ray
Paul,
I'm open to the possibility. I would need to see proof before I believed any creation story.
I have however had prayer answered. You can't take that for what it is worth to you. They are personal experiences.
Make that 'Can'
parvus flatus wrote:
"Sooner or later, faith has to come into these arguments...You've got to have a lot of faith to be an atheist..."
How is this so? Would you care to explain your statement that faith is required for non-belief?
This is yet another standard argument that has been refuted time and again in the basic literature that believers continually recycle.
In fact, faith is actually required to believe in things there simply is no positive, tangible, rational or empirical evidence for - a spirit realm, gods, demons, angels, etc.
It takes no faith whatsoever to conclude that such things do NOT exist – just a look at the known facts. On the contrary, faith is the ONLY path by which someone can conclude these entities truly exist, especially SPECIFIC ones such as Yahweh or Allah or Zeus or whoever.
Charlie, how can you make such statements as in your above post – like:
“Just like all the different religions these fundamentalist evolutionists start out with a conclusion and then stack the evidence for their pet theories.”
This is absolute nonsense – and totally counters the actual historical record, which you very obviously are completely ignorant of.
Charlie, be honest with yourself, how much serious reading have you actually done in this area? Have you looked at the issue from only a creationist point-of-view? Or have you read serious books or articles, with a truly open mind, on the subject written by scientists who are trained in this area?
The evidence for biological evolution is increasing by the year, especially in the area of DNA and genetic science.
Most Christians just refuse to even initially face up to, or keep up with the steadily-accumulating facts and evidence, that validates evolution - instead preferring their creationist cartoon-like characterizations of evolution, which are little more than easily knocked down straw men arguments, and not what evolutionary scientists actually believe at all.
Read FINDING DARWIN’S GOD by Ken Miller – who is a Christian, and yet faces up to the facts of science.
Better yet, I challenge you to read GOD & EVOLUTION: THE IMPLICATIONS OF DARWIN’S THEORY FOR FUNDAMENTALISM, THE BIBLE AND THE MEANING OF LIFE by Daniel J. Samson – who, by the way, was a full-time pastor in the WCG for 18 years during the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, until he finally was forced to look at the evidence upon being asked some serious questions by a prospective member he was visiting up in Canada. This book needs to be read by any Church member who seriously wants to claim a genuine and accurate understanding of the subject.
Honestly, I used to think the same way as you for years - until I finally, for the first time in all my 30+ years in the Church, started actually studying, point-by-point, the factual evidence in support of biological evolution. Much like HWA in the mid-1920’s, my original intention was to finally understand and then refute the arguments of science for evolution – except that I came to the opposite conclusions that HWA arrived at. I can tell you with absolute assurance that his understanding of evolution was extremely inaccurate.
Creationists hail Dr. Behe as their great spokesman, but often fail to realize he is 99% evolutionist. Just read his works. I’ve talked to the guy in person and know where he stands.
Please, read the above books, especially Samson’s one, and then tell me there is no serious and overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Paul Ray wrote:
"Leo, no one here will disagree with you that Islamo-Facists have a desire to convert the entire world over to their particular brand of theo-totalitarianism. But where we disagree is why they attacked us. According to you, the reason is that we are free, to boil it down."
Well, my view is that Bin Laden hates us and ordered the 9-11 attack against us simply because we are not believers in Allah and his perverted Prophet, plus the fact that we are the only superpower left standing after the collapse of the former Soviet Union – and then secondarily, because we are free democracies.
Reading FUTURE JIHAD: TERRORIST STRATEGIES AGAINST THE WEST by Walid Phares, along with hearing several of his superb lectures on the topic, really provides a good historical overview of the fundamentals of their thinking – both past and present.
Other than that, I would agree with virtually all your other concluding statements in your post, which I may end up agreeing with even more so as I'm currently reading Paul Kennedy's THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GREAT POWERS - which was recommended in a Bible Study given by Gene Hogberg when it was originally published back in 1989.
Leonardo,
Lots and lots of reading.
Since I believe neither version you can have your own opinion as to how objective I am.
"either that, or you simply are making claims that far exceed your specific area of training or expertise."
Yup, it's official, folks: "Larry" here is a WCG evangelist. Or some flavour of ministurd minion to Junior and Weazell.
Mark my words, I pegged him for a pastard from the first day he showed up here.
"I'll take the Lake O' Fire rather than worship the basket case that is Jehovah."
Hear hear!
As an atheist you do have to have faith. You are placing a bet that the Bible is totally bogus. You are also placing a bet that there is no Creator, and that you therefore have absolutely no responsibility to Him. You are totally throwing the legal precept of "reasonable doubt" to the winds. You are placing your faith in secular human logic and reasoning.
You also must have faith in the supposition that the law of biogenesis was broken one or more times, even though the most advanced scientists in all history have not been able to accomplish this today in our times.
You must have faith that the active laws of the universe, and the materials composing it were "just there". This requires just as much faith to believe as it does to believe that the Creator was "just there".
You may not have thought about these things in just this way, most likely because faith is considered to be a religious term, and atheism is based on the theory that there is no God. However, it all boils down to flipside of the same coin. Yin and yang. Opposites. You place your bet either way. Faith enters this equation with your belief that you are playing with the odds in your favor, and your hope that losing the bet will not produce catastrophic damage.
You can mock faith if you wish. But it is most certainly required for both belief and nonbelief. It is automatically triggered by how you choose to deal with the unknown, rhetoric notwithstanding.
"As an atheist you do have to have faith."
Once again, is your lack of belief in the Great Pumpkin a "faith?" Does it require faith to reject the idea that purple unicorns exist? I'll bet that your answer is "no." *
"You are placing a bet that the Bible is totally bogus."
Do you belive the things written in the Koran? In the Indian religious texts? You too are placing a bet that those things are totally bogus.*
"You are also placing a bet that there is no Creator, and that you therefore have absolutely no responsibility to Him. You are totally throwing the legal precept of "reasonable doubt" to the winds."
Creator? Or Jehovah? Or Allah? Or Zeus? Tell me, do you believe in Allah and/or Zeus? I doubt it. Sounds like you are also placing your own bet, and a risky one at that. Allah doesn't care too much for unbelievers (like Jehovah)so you might want to get your gods in order. Aren't you also casting reasonable doubt aside when you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the the goddess Kali??*
"You are placing your faith in secular human logic and reasoning."
I don't place "faith" on my ability to reason. I don't place "faith" on my ability to make observations and judgements.
"You also must have faith in the supposition that the law of biogenesis was broken one or more times, even though the most advanced scientists in all history have not been able to accomplish this today in our times."
When there is evidence that there is a god or goddess, then I will take a magical creation event into account. But until then, I will keep the fairy tales seperate from scientific theory, no matter how incredulous the theory seems.
I would also, using your logic, that since a god/goddess hasn't magically created anything in all of human history it casts serious doubt on a creation event.
"You must have faith that the active laws of the universe, and the materials composing it were "just there"."
No, no faith. It's a theory. I haven't accepted it as a fact so I don't treat it as one.
"This requires just as much faith to believe as it does to believe that the Creator was "just there"."
The difference is that you steadfastly believe in the latter without any proof. I don't view abiogenesis in this way.
*these inconsistencies really portray you as a hypocrite
Paul Ray
Charlie,
What is it about evolution that you do not accept? Or is your beef mainly with abiogenesis?
Paul Ray
Hey, PR.
Nice rhetoric there. But, sadly for you, the Bible happens to be quite different from those other works you cited. At least your logic is consistent. You list cartoon characters with God and Jesus to make your point, and also list obvious counterfeit holy books with the Bible in an attempt to cast them as equals.
You don't fool me a bit, though. I know that you aren't a true dispassionate atheist who arrived at his viewpoints via science. You are what we all know as a WCG atheist. Big, big difference. You became an atheist as a result of and solution for spiritual rape. WCG has contaminated your atheism, just as it contaminates anything else with which it comes into contact! I bet you do, in fact, actively worry that God really might exist from time to time! That would be typical, based on discussions with others who have cared to be a bit more honest and revealing.
You seem to be a one topic poster here, further proving that you are probably internally conflicted with the God question. Who are you trying to convince of your beliefs, yourself or all the other posters?
I noticed today that on one of the other blogs, some of the professing atheists are really beginning to come clean and demonstrate their real influences. They've finally gotten down to some blasphemy. Now, that requires a huge, huge, humongous, meshuggas amount of faith!
PH, I appreciate the vote of confidence. But, once again, you are incorrect. I have never been ordained. I doubt that the folks you mentioned even know who I am.
"I bet you do, in fact, actively worry that God really might exist from time to time!"
Man, have you got me pegged! Right on the nail.
Paul Ray
"I doubt that the folks you mentioned even know who I am."
Hm, given that you are so far off the alleged "playbook" that Junior and Weazell are insisting their little money-maker is now on, I'm inclined to agree.
As for your assertions of never having been ordained, perhaps it's a case of Thiel-itis that keeps you posting here?
"I noticed today that on one of the other blogs, some of the professing atheists are really beginning to come clean and demonstrate their real influences. They've finally gotten down to some blasphemy. Now, that requires a huge, huge, humongous, meshuggas amount of faith!"
So does posting un-anonymously. And the fact that you can't take what was clearly a joke, intended in the "spirit" of the Hallowe'en season, as such, is more proof that you're just as close-minded as the "My way or the highway!" brand of atheists.
If the "blasphemy" offends you, why do you read it? And did you ever stop to look at it from our point of view, that it's not blasphemy as far as we're concerned?
"I noticed today that on one of the other blogs, some of the professing atheists are really beginning to come clean and demonstrate their real influences. They've finally gotten down to some blasphemy. Now, that requires a huge, huge, humongous, meshuggas amount of faith!"
That is so illogical and stupid I don't even know where to start. It takes faith to consider it blasphemy. I have no faith, therefore I don't consider it blasphemy, as there's nothing to blaspheme against.
But I'll stop here. I'm guessing you are referring to some comments over at ISA, and as I said there, I don't particularly care what people think. You have your own blogs, use them.
Parvus Flatus, your entire comment offers absolutely nothing in defense of, nor proof for, your views - all it is is one rambling ad hominen attack.
You obviously can't counter or refute the logic of people who you scornfully refer to as "atheists" - and so you attack them instead with unfounded assertions.
Your words do your position more harm than good.
Probably better to quit while you can.
Look at you, Leo baby! You didn't address a single darned thing I said. You just attacked my methodology. What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? Can't refute it, so you ridicule it? Tsss. Just like a WCG minister!
I think parvus flatus is a troll.
Post a Comment