Prognostication takes another turn into the land of the crazy with the stunningly brain-dead nonsense COGaholics are spouting forth about the EU leadership.Do none of these self-declared experts remember the fiasco about Franz Joseph Strauss?
Simple answer: yes, but they're humming loudly to themselves and pretending they don't.
So along comes Herman Van Rompuy, and the screaming doom-casters, having learned nothing, are at it again.
Bob Thiel, Th.D (Kochi, India) has this to say on his blog.
Herman Van Rompuy has pledged to raise taxes. And since he is not the final King of the North, if Daniel 11:20 has a final fulfillment and he dies early, the following may apply to him:
You're wading way out into the quicksand there Bob.There shall arise in his place one who imposes taxes on the glorious kingdom; but within a few days he shall be destroyed, but not in anger or in battle (Daniel 11:20).
... I believe that while Herman Van Rompuy is not likely to be the one that is the final King of the North, he may help set the stage for that leader to rise up. And if he fulfills his comments about raising taxes, he certainly could be considered as a person who fulfills Daniel 11:20.
The hilarious thing is that Bob is posturing as the cautious commentator vis-à-vis the truckload of manure that the Flurry sect is spouting on this issue. He doesn't seem to have succeeded!
Let's be honest. Franz Joseph Strauss had zero prophetic significance. That's obvious in hindsight, but it was also obvious at the time to anybody who bothered to look into the genre of biblical writing.Herman Van Rompuy has zero prophetic significance. You don't need to wait to find that out, it's completely obvious right now.
Daniel 11:20 has nothing to do with Herman Van Rompuy. Does Bob (or Gerry) not possess a decent commentary to refer to? (Possibly not, as they'd consider such a thing "worldly.")
Herbert Armstrong and his "hanger-onners" had zero prophetic insight.
Gerry Flurry's prophetic insight scores in negative numbers. Zero flatters him.
Bob Thiel has zero prophetic insight.
This is where all the nonsense about "watch world news" falls apart. The Bible can't be aligned with the newspaper headlines of today (or Time cover articles), any more than it could in the 1930s or 1970s. The whole enterprise is doomed to failure, although a convincing performance may line the pockets of those who claim otherwise.
It may cause folk to feel special if they delude themselves about having an inside-track on world events, but sooner or later they - and often their loved ones - are going to have to pay.
Across on Mike Bennett's blog is one of those gratuitous postings on the perils of taking the Lord's name in vain. It's called "Signs of perilous times: blasphemers." Here's the irony: the very same people who are horrified by gosh or darn seem deliriously happy when someone climbs up into the pulpit and talks utter rubbish in God's name, claiming - on God's authority - to identify prophetic significance where there is absolutely none. Again, think of all that inane speculation about Strauss and Otto von Habsburg.
Now that really is taking God's name in vain.
43 comments:
Gavin boldly assert...
>>Daniel 11:20 has nothing to do with Herman Van Rompuy.<<
You may well be right! But if your sentence had read, "Daniel 11:20 has nothing to do with Herman Van Rompuy because it applied to..., then your bold assertion might carry some credibility. But to say who is doesn't apply to, without saying to whom it applied or applies is not very helpful.
Daniel is apocalyptic literature. It doesn't apply to anybody in the distant future (i.e. today). One reasonable conjecture is that the reference is to Seleucus IV Philopater, who sent his minister of finance out to loot the Jerusalem Temple. Be that as it may, the verse in question clearly has nothing to do with an EU leader.
Gavin,
Thank you for another insightful blog. I hope you understand that you reach a worldwide audience, and your service to those of us who grew up believing God was working through the Armstrongs is greatly appreciated. I for one would greatly miss your blog should it go offline as you recently hinted.
Relevant to this topic, I’d like to put a plug in for an article, “Are These the Last Days?” written by the late former Worldwide Church of God minister Richard Wiedenheft published in the Church of God (Seventh Day) Bible Advocate available on-line here:
http://baonline.org/BAPrint/09-8-Last_Days-E.html.
Perhaps Dr. Bob (Th.D from Kochi, India - lol) will peruse your blog, and will click on Mr. Wiedenheft’s article and read the common sense contained in the article. Oh by the way, I’ve noticed the dead Sardis Church seems much more alive today than the remnants of Armstrongism.
I simply cannot take the profits (oops, I mean prophets) of doom and gloom seriously anymore. Growing up in the WCG, I never dreamed in 1970 that I would someday live to be 20, 30, 40 or 50 years old or more. It was so drilled into my mind by the Church that “time was very short” and “the end was very near”. I never ever dreamed that I had a future to live in this life, and subconsciously deferred life experiences, even after I stopped attending the church, because I believed time was very short! If you read Mr. Wiedenheft’s article, you will understand my statement.
Richard
According to Tom, if I say, "Daniel 11:20 has nothing to do with Mickey Mouse," I have little credibility. But if I say, "Daniel 11:20 has nothing to do with Mickey Mouse because it applied to Santa Claus," then my credibility goes up.
Gavin, you should know better than to disappoint the itching ears crowd.
Anyway, nice picture, Tom.
People who recall the traditional COG understanding of Daniel 11 also would declare Mr. Thiel wrong.
They'd remember the "time of the end" section of that chapter doesn't start until verse 40 -- and everything before that has already happened! (For example, Judas Maccabeus fulfilling vs. 31-32 in 167 B.C.)
Tom Mahon Said,
"But to say who is doesn't apply to, without saying to whom it applied or applies is not very helpful."
It applies to ME. I AM He. I didn't realize there was another title out there I could take so obviously now that it has come to everyone's attention....Daniel 11:20, actually the whole book, is about ME
As usual, another good blog, Gavin.
What I always find so amazing in the fantasy realm of COG prophetic speculations is how folks, after DECADES of one failed prediction after another after another after another, can STILL take this nonsense seriously – much like a drug addict who knows from tangible, painful experience the devastating results his addiction of choice always causes, and yet who continually keeps taking it.
It truly boggles the mind to see how DEEPLY (and sometimes, it seems, PERMANENTLY) DELUDED the human mind can become when it rejects realistic, fact-based assessments of various ideologies and continues on believing faith-based supernatural assertions even when there is simply NO evidence to go on other than the fact that “The Bible says it, that settles it, I believe it!”
I too believed this way when I was a young, naïve and ignorant teenager first being drawn into the vortex of the WCG back in the mid 70’s – but finally I had to face up to the FACTS that these prophecy gurus know absolutely NOTHING about what they so confidently talk about and put themselves forward as being experts in. The unimpressive historical track record of these bozos tells us everything we need to know of the true nature of their “prophetic insights.”
Simply astounding!
The great physicist Albert Einstein once said:
“Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
If COG prophecy buffs don’t provide a real-life illustration of this, then nothing does!
If the Jack and The Beanstalk story had been in the Bible canon they'd all be arguing about what type of bean it was, and whether the giant was kin to Goliath!
If people keep on prognosticating they are sure to get things right someday. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day as we know.
Gavin said...
>>Daniel is apocalyptic literature.<<
If you mean by "apocalyptic," that it is revelatory, then yes. Anyway, the book of Daniel is actually historical and prophetic. It outlines prophecies, beginning with Babylon through to the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment of the living and the dead. The book contains many prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled. I could give examples, but you may wish to read them for yourself.
>>It doesn't apply to anybody in the distant future (i.e. today).<<
It does apply to people today and in the future. At this point in time however, we may not be able to identify any specific person to whom it applies, but when God it ready he will reveal to his servants to whom it applies. But the religious and social conditions in which we live are clearly outlined in the book of Daniel.
>>One reasonable conjecture is that the reference is to Seleucus IV Philopater, who sent his minister of finance out to loot the Jerusalem Temple.<<
The person who fulfilled this prophecy is recorded on page 7 of Mr. Armstrong's seminal booklet, The Middle East in Prophecy.
>>Be that as it may, the verse in question clearly has nothing to do with an EU leader.<<
I never thought it did. I just wanted you to realise that when you are criticising an idea, you ought to say why.
I shall now returned to Mizpah until desolation overspreads the land!
Tom said what?
"But to say who is doesn't apply to...."
What would be helpful Tom is for you to make some logical sence. Get your intellectual house in order before criticizing others. Oh, and Tom, Humpty Dumpty was pushed..........
Tom says: "then your bold assertion might carry some credibility"
I used to think Tom's posts were reasonable but his credibility goes down and down now when I read his posts.
It would be more helpful if Tom studied and applied a bit more logic and reason to his thinking.
Bob go blind?
He certainly is a tosser of wild ideas around.
Cheers,
Jorgheinz
Richard said...
People who recall the traditional COG understanding of Daniel 11 also would declare Mr. Thiel wrong.
They'd remember the "time of the end" section of that chapter doesn't start until verse 40 -- and everything before that has already happened! (For example, Judas Maccabeus fulfilling vs. 31-32 in 167 B.C.)
You are forgetting "proper" Christian exegesis. First there is the typical fulfillment and then there is the archetypal fulfillment of prophecy.
Hmmmm. Two resurrections of the dead...maybe just forget what I said.
Leonardo said...
>>As usual, another good blog, Gavin.<<
You mean another good post. To be accurate, the blog is the web site.
>>What I always find so amazing in the fantasy realm of COG prophetic speculations is how folks, after DECADES of one failed prediction after another after another after another, can STILL take this nonsense seriously –<<
If I may say so, you are confusing predicting with prophesying. A prediction may or may not come to pass. For example, one may predict that a boxer will be knocked out in the fifth round, and it may or may not happen. But prophecy, which has its origin in God, is certain to be fulfilled.
The problem that has plagued WCG's ministry is, they speculated about the meaning and fulfilment of several prophecies, which have turned out to be wrong. But their ignorance should not drive us to the conclusion that the prophecies of the bible are the rantings of "goat herders," who had spent too much time in the desert!
>>It truly boggles the mind to see how DEEPLY (and sometimes, it seems, PERMANENTLY) DELUDED the human mind can become when it rejects realistic, fact-based assessments of various ideologies and continues on believing faith-based supernatural assertions even when there is simply NO evidence to go on other than the fact that “The Bible says it, that settles it, I believe it!”<<
Here you go again! Before condemning anything that is based on faith, you need to define what faith is. You appear, to put it politely, to be arguing that FAITH is not supported by evidence. Yet, the bible defines FAITH as, "the EVIDENCE of things not seen."
How do you think that a jury convicts a man of a crime that they have not seen? They believe him to be guilty based on the evidence presented to them, which enables them to see the crime even though they did actually witness the event. So faith is not ignorance, as you seem to think. On contrary, it absolute knowledge when the evidence is presented by witnesses who are incapable of lying.
I shall now returned to Mizpah, where I was meditation a wider sphere of mercy!
Gosh...at first glance at Rompuy, I thought it was Mike Feazell going old overnight realizing all that has happened.
I always love his Xmas Tree article on why it's Christian and of the Holy Spirit...can't wait.
We should not judge Armstrongists too harshly for their belief in concocted and dubious prophecy. After all, we all bought and wore that t-shirt.
Trying to get to the root of why people believe certain ideas is a fools errand. As Woody Allen said: "The heart wants what the heart wants."
I remember showing up on the AC Big Sandy campus for the 1-W program. I met with an AC administrator who reminds me now of Jabba the Hutt. He was threatening and primitive in his communications skills. A sudden, brief epiphany came to me at that moment that this was really just a pseudo-Christian organization. But I quickly set this aside and remained in the WCG for another 30 years.
Sheila Graham just wrote in Cartwright's The Journal: "The WCG was no more a cult than the Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh Day Baptists or the Seventh Day Church of God, from which the WCG sect originated."
Why does she or anyone believe this? If you look at published sources and the dictionary, the dry prose may not make Armstrongism appear so bad. The malignancy is not discernible in the prose but in the practice. I know that Armstrongism was a cult because I was there and saw its impact on people's lives.
It is the accumulation of experience that reveals to us that Armstrongism was and is a cult not journal articles about the history of Adventism. So I disagree with Ms. Graham. (I cannot think about her without remembering that I took her to a Spokesman's Club Widow's Night in Gladewater, Texas decades ago.) Most of that experience is documented on the web in such sources as Ambassador Watch rather than on the GCI website that Graham recommends.
The Bear
I find it compelling, considering the views on this blog towards the validity of the bible, to hear various points of view justified by bible verses.
I remember arguing with someone on another blog that, for all we know, The Lord of the Rings might be considered "gospel" in 1000 years. Their response was, "yes, but the bible is true."
How remarkable.
Here's prophecy for you: I believe that Jesus will come again. The how, when, or what will happen after is all conjecture on the part of delusional people trying to jockey for authority and control in this life.
Prophecy is nothing more than crack for the fringe Christian. These groups who claim to be prophets or understand prophecy are all addicted. They aren't healthy.
My prediction is that how the end occurs bears no resemblance whatsoever to what the COG (or other) prognosticators are saying.
If I was much more interested in the positive Christian Living aspects of the WCG and ignored all the prophetic nonsense, was I still in a cult-like mindset?
Tom Mahon wrote:
"Here you go again! Before condemning anything that is based on faith, you need to define what faith is. You appear, to put it politely, to be arguing that FAITH is not supported by evidence. Yet, the bible defines FAITH as, "the EVIDENCE of things not seen."
Tom, I've been down this road many times before.
You fundamentalists can verbally quibble all you want as to the "true" definition of faith, but in the end, faith, in the context of supernatural religious belief, is ardently believing things for which there is no empirical evidence or logical rationale - whether the Bible says it or not.
The Bible says many things that are patently false. For instance, Hebrew cosmology clearly borrowed from Babylonian cosmology - and thus the Bible implies the earth is a fixed, flat disc with a dome-like "firmament" above - but this is simply not the case in objective reality. If your deity couldn't get it right with respect to the actual sphericity of the earth, then why in the world should we believe the "prophecies" supposedly inspired by him?
And you can find all kinds of excuses for failed prophecies - but they are stilled FAILED, every time. You IMAGINE in the fantasy world of your own mind that they have been, or will be, fulfilled, and that's the extent of your "evidence."
Perhaps you might want to actually THINK for a change, rather than wasting your time in Mizpah!
Bear_track wrote:
"Trying to get to the root of why people believe certain ideas is a fools errand."
And in one simple statement, a fool has undercut a major motive that inspires much of psychology, philosophy and sociology in their search for explanatory knowledge.
Hey, if Woody Allan says it, then it simply MUST be so!
(One time I actually met Woody Allan, but that’s a whole other story!)
Bear_track also wrote:
“The malignancy is not discernible in the prose but in the practice. I know that Armstrongism was a cult because I was there and saw its impact on people's lives.”
Well now, you’ve finally said something that I can wholeheartedly agree with, Bear!
Jorgheinz asked:
Bob go blind?
He certainly is a tosser of wild ideas around.
I took the "blind" thing as an indirect statement that Bob's prophetic blatherings are so much mental masturbation. Maybe Gavin didn't mean that, but that's the way I took it.
"The malignancy is not discernible in the prose but in the practice.
Ooh...I like that phrase! Can I steal it?
The unbearable Tom speaks his heresies. Has the god of blog land have no mercy?
Big Dandy said... If I was much more interested in the positive Christian Living aspects of the WCG and ignored all the prophetic nonsense, was I still in a cult-like mindset?
------------
Big Dandy, you are deceiving yourself if you think that there were any positive benefits from your WCG experience. The whole package was damaged. Lost years wandering in the wilderness.
Baywolfe wrote:
"I remember arguing with someone on another blog that, for all we know, The Lord of the Rings might be considered "gospel" in 1000 years. Their response was, "yes, but the bible is true."
Most Christians (especially of the fundamentalist variety) can SAY that, often with great confidence, but they fail miserably when they try to actually PROVE it, or attempt to give their reasons for believing WHY they claim that "the Bible is true!" or even what they specifically MEAN by such a statement.
The comment section here on AW is more than eloquent testimony to THAT!
Many aspects of the writings of William Shakespeare are true too, because they dramatize accurate insights into the nature of reality in general, and into human motives and behavior specifically, but that doesn't mean that therefore they were somehow "inspired" by a deity.
Often folks are powerfully touched and motivated by such writings - for example, by what you cited: Tolkien’s "Lord of the Rings" novels, etc. - because such works tap into overarching universal truths of great concern to us human beings, which is a characteristic of all great written literature or film.
But there is a huge difference between epic literature and that which is claimed to have been "God breathed" like proponents of the Bible groundlessly assert.
I’ve often thought about your above future scenario, where archeologists many centuries from now, digging about in some ancient landfill, might discover a DVD or written version of Tolkien’s work (or George Lucas’ “Star Wars” story), and then certain mindless "fundamentalists of the future" will spin-doctor the fictional tale into an invisible deity’s “one true religion” and claim that they can prove it was inspired by said deity!
Remember Einstein’s quote about the far reaches of human stupidity!!
Mark wrote:
"My prediction is that how the end occurs bears no resemblance whatsoever to what the COG (or other) prognosticators are saying."
But Mark, what if there is no "end" as commonly envisioned?
That's yet another huge assumption on the part of supernaturalistic religionists.
Big Dandy wrote:
"If I was much more interested in the positive Christian Living aspects of the WCG and ignored all the prophetic nonsense, was I still in a cult-like mindset?"
That's an EXCELLENT point, Big Dandy.
I've often written here on AW that I truly feel I gained a tremendous amount of unique experience and insight from my 30 years in the COG's, perhaps that I couldn’t have acquired in ANY OTHER WAY imaginable.
If "crying-in-their-beer" ex-WCG folks would be willing to apply their minds, then with a little effort they can parlay their COG experiences into some incredibly insightful observations extremely relevant to practical living. If they are but willing to creatively face reality they will eventually see that in many respects they are totally unique in this regard, and can use their COG experiences, both the good and the bad, as a tremendous advantage in life.
I know this is possible because I've done it!
And not only is it more than possible, it is a considerably more realistic, positive and life-affirming approach that beats the daylights out of walking around all angry and apathetic about our “cult experience,” complaining how we’ve wasted many years of our lives, thrown away our hard-earned money to finance HWA’s fantasies of “doing the Work,” etc. – which is analogous to some fool carrying around a huge barrel of leaking acid on his shoulders, all the time complaining about what a heavy burden it is, how it’s ruined his life, how it keeps him from making future progress, how the leaking acid is burning him, etc.
I’ve found the concept of “turning lemon juice into lemonade” to be a much more productive strategy than the “woe-is-me” barrel-lugging approach, which is truly a waste of life, energy and resources.
Everybody reading this has the potential to do this - if they are just willing to put forth the effort!
Lost wrote:
“Big Dandy, you are deceiving yourself if you think that there were any positive benefits from your WCG experience. The whole package was damaged. Lost years wandering in the wilderness.”
Stop talking nonsense, Lost.
I gained a LOT from my years in the COG's - I'm not deluding myself, nor do I think most bloggers here would consider me a deceived fool.
If you truly meant and believe your statement to Big Dandy above, then may I humbly suggest that you may be only looking at “one side of the coin” with respect to your (our) journey through the WCG.
In the final analysis, no experience is a bad one unless you fail to learn anything from it.
For example, there are folks who survived through the horrors of Nazi concentration camps, Soviet-era labor camps, etc. - and developed unique strengths by enduring through such a crucible they never would have otherwise acquired. And surely your experience in the WCG wasn’t anything approaching these kinds of situations, were they?
Perhaps you are being sarcastic – and I’ve often taken such sarcasm at face value here on AW. If that’s the case then just ignore my comments here.
But if you are indeed serious, I appeal to you to please don’t carelessly toss away the years you may have spent in the WCG by interpreting them as a total and complete waste of time and effort. This would truly be a tragic loss of life experience.
Instead, turn them into an advantage that can benefit you and yours for the rest of your life - because you have acquired a database of dear-bought experience that few have.
Why not profit from it?
Leonardo said...
TM>>"Here you go again! Before condemning anything that is based on faith, you need to define what faith is. You appear, to put it politely, to be arguing that FAITH is not supported by evidence. Yet, the bible defines FAITH as, "the EVIDENCE of things not seen."<<
>>Tom, I've been down this road many times before.<<
I don't think so! You have never been engaged in a discussion about the bible with anyone who is able to expose the fallacy of your thinking.
Are you disputing the bible's definition of faith? If you are, what is your definition? And are you denying that Jurors' decisions are based on faith, and that they are able to see the committed crime based upon the evidence presented to them? And therefore, "faith is the evidence of things not seen?"
In addition, why did you not reply to the points I made, instead of trying to make out that I cannot think?
I believe that all of the objective and impartial people posting and lurking here, can see that you are frantically trying to duck the bible's definition of faith, and my graphic illustration of an example of faith, with which we are all familiar.
Leonardo said: Everybody reading this has the potential to do this - if they are just willing to put forth the effort!
-----------
What polyanna dribble! You and Big Dandy totally miss the point of the horrendous damage caused by the WCG movement.
Leonardo said... I gained a tremendous amount of unique experience and insight from my 30 years in the COG's, perhaps that I couldn’t have acquired in ANY OTHER WAY imaginable.
-----------------
Leonardo, you are perpetuating the myth of the WCG's uniqueness. Very dangerous thinking.
Tom Mahon wrote:
"Here you go again! Before condemning anything that is based on faith, you need to define what faith is. You appear, to put it politely, to be arguing that FAITH is not supported by evidence. Yet, the bible defines FAITH as, "the EVIDENCE of things not seen."
Religion is a hypothesis. Without any evidence to back it up. The following article says it far more eloquently than I can.
http://www.alternet.org/story/144199/
Leonardo said...
I've often written here on AW that I truly feel I gained a tremendous amount of unique experience and insight from my 30 years in the COG's, perhaps that I couldn’t have acquired in ANY OTHER WAY imaginable.
I wonder if German's say that about Jews who survived the holocaust?
Healing comes with time. Some people heal faster than others. Your lack of empathy for them is apalling. The worst hit are often the "true believers".
When Tom Mahon's time comes, will you be there to listen to him or kick him for not getting over it?
Leonardo said...
I've often written here on AW that I truly feel I gained a tremendous amount of unique experience and insight from my 30 years in the COG's, perhaps that I couldn’t have acquired in ANY OTHER WAY imaginable.
Well, as a child growing up in the church I gained some unique experiences that were not aquirable in any other way. I'd rather not have those experiences.
Being beaten to significant levels, sanctioned by many sermons on child rearing, spare the rod, spoil the child. Some of that nonsense came from modern day attackers of the family like Dr Dobson.
Growing up believing there would not be enough time to be married, or educated, etc. I'm over 50 years old now.
Suffering from depression and anxiety from the fire and brimstone forced on me at an age where I couldn't rationalize it or understand it.
Been through one broken marriage (to a minister's daughter no less) believing that if I just prayed about it god would answer my earnest prayers.
Sorry, too much damage to accept Leonardo's position on the value of such experience. And I'm one who generally agrees with him.
At what point do we rise above it and just consider it a part of our own particular story in life? The WCG experience is undoable. It is what it is.
Some of us had to be there because it seemed right. Others had to be there because they had no choice as a child. Some are still there through flip over back to the gentile version of the Jewish story and others have opted for an offshoot of the Jewish story instead of the Gentile version.
Each is where they are at. The human need to convince another of their side of the tale is what keeps everything going. I would dare say that none of us has much changed their minds on the experience based on how someone else things we need or needed to see or experience it.
I would have to say that one of the greatest insites I have gained in one short soundbite would be the fact that most humans are content to be "piously convicted with marginal information." It's just easier and, of course, no one either believes the wrong things or is a member of the untrue church. Every Christian I know of all perspectives believes that what they believe and where they believe it is good enough.
One would think that if it was absolutely vital for humans to know the absolute real truth, expressed and practiced in the absolute real true way, at exactly the right time with completely coherent and sameness of thought, a better way to communicate it would have been necessary.
The Bible, by it's very nature as written down by a myriad of SINGLE MIDDLE EASTERN THINKING (and perhaps even some mentally unstable) MEN, is a set up for all this confusion. Women and kids always loose in this setting and men never are wrong.
Tom Mahon wrote:
"You have never been engaged in a discussion about the bible with anyone who is able to expose the fallacy of your thinking."
Tom, have you been reading my posts of the past 4 months or so? If you have you'll see that nobody has yet to expose "the fallacy of my thinking."
Or are the folks I've debated on-line here not "true Christians" in your estimation, and therefore that's why their arguments have been totally refuted?
Would you care to make the attempt?
Folks like you are big at making arrogant assertions, but extremely poor at clearly articulating or proving them.
Tom further asks:
“Are you disputing the bible's definition of faith? If you are, what is your definition?”
Yes, as a matter of fact I am. My definition of faith – which I provided in my first response to you if would have carefully read it - in the context of supernatural religion is believing something enough to build your life around it even though you have absolutely no empirical, tangible evidence or logical rationale for it whatsoever.
Jurors decisions are based upon the evidence and specific merits of the case they are attempting to decide – evidence which must be sound enough to withstand rigorous questioning, and offer proof beyond reasonable doubt if a "guilty" verdict is sought.
You can offer no such level of proof for your (and therefore the Bible's) zany claims.
Tom also writes:
“In addition, why did you not reply to the points I made, instead of trying to make out that I cannot think?”
Well, your points really don’t make sense to me at all, so I have a hard time knowing how to respond. I just don’t understand the relevance of the specific points you claim to have made.
And I don’t have to try to make out that you cannot think straight – your own meandering comments do that job most adequately. That’s why you have the reputation of being a nutty fundamentalist here on AW.
Tom arrogantly concludes:
“I believe that all of the objective and impartial people posting and lurking here, can see that you are frantically trying to duck the bible's definition of faith, and my graphic illustration of an example of faith, with which we are all familiar.”
OK, I see. I’ve frantically evaded answering your vague “points” and your illustration because your logic is so searing and superior to my own that I simply cannot refute the overwhelming power of your responses. And it’s obvious for all rational minds to see. Right.
Tom, perhaps if you would actually make your points more clearer and articulate, then maybe I could attempt to respond to them. But as it is I really can’t see the points you are making, aside from blathering on in standard supernaturalist style, using a lot of words but actually saying nothing of any merit or value.
Lost wrote:
"What polyanna dribble! You and Big Dandy totally miss the point of the horrendous damage caused by the WCG movement."
As usual, those who accuse others of "missing the point" are the ones who actually miss it most of all!
If you've ever read virtually ANY of the comments I've made here on AW, you'd know that I've never denied the damage the WCG and it's splinter groups have done in the past, are doing in the present and will continue to do out into the future.
As many long-time bloggers know here, I am no friend, supporter or defender of COG religion.
So that being said, WHY do you call the effective and life-promoting strategy of turning the negative experiences of life into tremendously valuable learning experiences "polyanna dribble"?
And please be specific in your response, rather than just resorting to throwing accusatory labels at me, and then scamper off after only saying a few words.
Either put up, or shut up!
Bamboo_bends, if I have such a lack of empathy for WCG survivors, then why do you think I spend so much time blogging here on AW - because I have nothing better to do with my time and life?
If you knew the one-on-one time I’ve spent on those who've suffered through the COG religious experience, and the care I genuinely feel for them, then you'd never make such a comment that you did.
The point I was attempting to make was simply the value of learning from one’s negative life experiences, not to berate folks for not “getting over it” quickly. I realize it takes time to heal. I’ve gone through a lot of loss and suffering in my life, some related directly to COG religion, some not, so I have to strongly object to your directly stating that I lack empathy for people in pain.
But I also know that certain folks use that pain as an excuse to NEVER move on beyond it. Instead, they wallow in it for the rest of their lives. They take a certain comfort in their pain, and sometimes even cling to it like an insecure child to a security blanket. This is unhealthy. And to promote and enable such behavior, well, that it truly showing a lack of empathy.
Anonymous 7:12, I'm not denying your pain or terrible experience as a child being raised within the often brutal and child-hostile environment of the old WCG at all.
Please, my friend, do understand this.
And neither am I denying that sometimes such experiences can scar us for life to a certain degree.
What I AM saying is that it does no good, most especially the sufferer, to wallow in it for the rest of one's life long after the experiences are now in the distant past.
Anon, I've witnessed this too much in both my WCG experience and post-COG life: folks who just refuse to derive lessons from the rough knocks they’ve had to endure through, and do little more than whine about it for the rest of their lives.
My father died suddenly when I was 10-years-old; my mother committed suicide when I was a freshman out at AC. I lost three members of my immediate family to death by the time I was 21. And I’ll tell you, I could have spent the rest of my life grieving such losses, which are especially difficult when they must be endured as a young child.
There was a certain time perimeter in my life where I faced an emotional "fork in the road" – a time of serious decision that would have long-range implications for the remainder of my life - whether to wallow in the pain and loss I experienced as a child and young person, allow myself to give into the deep depression that such experiences gave rise to - or whether to turn such tragedies into learning experiences such that could positively contribute to my future life.
Somehow or another, I choose the latter, and I know it’s made all the difference to the positive and wonderful life I’m able to have now.
It is a choice. It is a decision one is forced to make. And I’ve seen church folks go one way or another – and experience the consequences of such decisions.
As I write this comment I’m thinking of an old college buddy of mine from AC, who left the WCG and his brief stint in UCG about ten years ago now. This guy sees himself as the biggest loser one can imagine – and he actually has carved out an identity informed by this sad estimation of himself. And what’s worse is that he’s had many opportunities since then to improve his lot in life, to change it, to move on out of it. But every time such an opportunity presents itself, he cowardly runs back into his cave of depression and the making of excuses, mainly blaming his church experiences for his lot in life.
There was a gal who really liked him, but all he did when he was with her was cry on her shoulder virtually all the time, complaining about all his bad breaks in life, the lousy bosses he had when he was an employee out in Pasadena, etc. – such that the woman finally came to understand that he didn’t want a wife to share life with, he wanted a mother figure to cry and complain to! Obviously, this is a real “turn-off” to most females, and which triggers within them a tremendous lack of respect.
I occasionally am in touch with this fellow, and needless to say, in spite of his having a graduate-level education (a Master’s degree) from a California university (aside from his AC experience) he is earning an extremely modest income, basically just barely surviving, living paycheck to paycheck, running from creditors, and refusing to face up to the fact that his own decisions in life have lead him to the place he is currently at: a subsistence-level existence in one of the wealthiest nations in world history. Instead of furthering his job skills, he spends long periods watching mindless TV shows, and then he has the audacity of complaining about his meager job.
Yet he continually wants to blame his church experience for virtually all his woes. It is tragic to witness.
I see too much of this destructive mentality in both current and ex-church members – and it grieves me such that I will never enable it. Sympathize, yes. Empathize, absolutely. Understand, of course.
But enable and encourage it by justifying it and allowing it to continue, NO!
After looking at some of the above responses to Leonardo, I am struck by the vastly different perspectives we have on our WCG experiences. In looking back I see my experience (as Leonardo) through a positive light, but it's not hard to understand the pain of others.
The debate over whether the WCG (including its prophetic wasteland) on balance enriched or debilitated lives could go on forever. On balance, mine was enriched. I'd choose to live these years again.
Post a Comment