The Delayed Prophecy Excuse Refuted

50-years-wrong
Pontificate like the Devil’s Ventriloquist.

by Gun Lap

Was Herbert Armstrong a false prophet when he predicted Jesus Christ would return within five to ten years (Military Service and War 1967, p. 54), that communism would take over India and engulf “the yellow races” (1975 in Prophecy, p. 10, 1956), or that a world dictator was about to appear (first copy of The Plain Truth)? Or, as Armstrong apologists say, were his prophecies merely delayed?

How long can a prophecy be delayed and still be from God? What does the bible say about this? Forget what your church teaches for a moment—what does the bible say? It might come as as surprise, but the bible does address this issue!

When Paul spoke of the return of Christ in his time (I Thess 4:17), was he merely “off in his timing” as many ministers preach? Were the prophecies of Jesus predicting his second coming (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) delayed 2000 years? Does this make Jesus a false prophet?

If any of these men were off in their timing, do they deserve the death penalty for being false prophets? The frank bible answer will come as a shock to any Christian brave enough to face it. If you are a Christian, brace yourself, and read on.

Deut 18:20-22 says if a prophet arises and if his words do not come to pass, he must die! God actually commanded the death. One cannot carry out a death sentence on someone who has aleady died of natural causes, so, obviously, the death sentence must be carried out while the prophet is still alive. If the prophet dies of natural causes that command has not been kept. This must be considered seriously. It was a serious sin to disobey a command to execute a false prophet.

“When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, IF THE THING FOLLOW NOT, NOR COME TO PASS, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptiously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deut 18:22.). Note that it says explicity (in v. 21) that this is how they were to “know” that the words of the false prophet were not from God. They did not have to guess, wonder, or wait indefinitely to find out if the words were from God. They could know. Then.

What was the penalty for the prophet?

“But the prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak … even THAT PROPHET SHALL DIE.” (v. 20).

Notice the command: the false prophet must die. It’s not talking about letting him die of natural causes!

Now let’s suppose I were a false prophet. I could prophesy in the name of the Lord that lead will turn into gold. My followers might load up on lead, then wait for lead to turn into gold. And wait. And wait. How long should they wait? Eventually I die of old age. Was it a failed prophecy? I never set a date for the prophecy to be fulfilled, so my followers could be waiting forever. How will they know it was a false prophecy? How long should they hold onto their lead?

If they accept the “prophecy did not fail, it was just delayed” excuse they could be waiting forever. By that standard, one could come up with millions of prophecies which can never be disproven no matter how long we wait.

But God said you can KNOW that the words of the false prophet were not from God (v. 21). If we wait and wait forever, we will NEVER know. But God said we can KNOW if the word was from him, by whether it comes to pass.

Clearly, there must be an upper time limit on how long we must wait before we can know, and it must be before the death of the false prophet from natural causes.

“And if you say in your heart, How shall we KNOW the word which the Lord has NOT spoken?” (v. 21).

This is not talking about knowing a true prophet by words which DO come to pass. It is talking about knowing a FALSE prophet by words which do NOT come to pass. It does not say here that we should just keep waiting indefinitely because we can never know. It says we can KNOW.

God commanded that if a prophet arises and if his words do not come to pass, he must be put to death. Once again, this sentence was to be carried out while the prophet was still alive—in the prophet’s own lifetime. It would have been pointless for God to order the death of the false prophet otherwise.

Though we don’t kill false prophets today, the instructions on how to glock-gunlapdetect a false prophet are still applicable today.

To my knowledge, the bible does not say how many years to wait, but it does effectivly put an upper time limit on the prophecy. If the prophet dies of natural causes, we waited too long because God COMMANDED that he be executed, which means he must be executed before he dies of natural causes. So the maximum time we must wait is some time less than the life time of the prophet.

In other words, if the prophet dies before his prophesy comes to pass, he was a false prophet, and should have been executed!

Did Herbert Armstrong die before his prophecies came to pass? Yes! He was a false prophet. Did Paul die before his prophecies came to pass? Yes! He was a false prophet. Did Jesus die before his prophecies came to pass? Yes! Another false prophet.

But many readers will object: “the bible is full of prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled.” That is true. But according to Deuteronomy, every one of them was uttered by a false prophet. Either Deuteronomy is false, or many bible prophets who came later are false. We can’t have it both ways.

This is just more proof that the bible is a collection of contradictions that were not inspired by God. Bible scholars and ministers make a living confusing the issues. They try to jump through hoops to explain away such contradictions in the bible. This is nothing more than self-serving self-delusion and lies. If they can’t dazzle us with brilliance, they try to baffle us with nonsense. Don’t believe their nonsense.

These men are also false prophets themselves because they are perpetuating those false prophecies, telling people, contrary to Deuteronomy, to wait indefinitely until the prophecies are fulfilled. They try to scare people with the fear of lost salvation, or death, or suffering for those who disregard their prophecies. But Deuteronomy commands us not to fear such men.

“When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptiously: THOU SHALT NOT BE AFRAID OF HIM.” (Deuteronomy 18:22.).

Sadly, many lack courage. Proverbs 29:25 says, “Fear of man will prove to be a snare…” Revelation 21:8 says “But the cowardly … their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.”

How many chances should we give the prophet whose words do not come to pass?

“But the prophet which shall presume to speak A WORD in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak … even THAT PROPHET SHALL DIE.” (v. 20). I.e. just one “word”.

“… if THE thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is THE thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet has spoken IT presumptiously …” (Deuteronomy 18:22.). Just ONE thing. One chance. One failed (“delayed”) prophecy—that’s it!

Do not fear your ministers. Reject fear. And reject false prophets and the “prophecy was just delayed” excuse.

Do the Math: World Violence is Going Down, Not Up!

gun

Copyright © 2014 by Gun Lap


We think that we live in violent times, and of course, to some extent, we do. The evening news regularly carries stories and images of war, terror, or murder. But the big question is whether violence is going up or down. Because if violence is not going up, how can we be in the end times?

Stephen Pinker, author of the 2012 book The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined has studied the trend of violence in history and his data shows, surprisingly to many, that violence is going down!

According to Pinker, whether we believe it or not, we may be living in the most peaceful time in human history. People who think violence is going up don’t realize how much violence there was in the past.

The bible does not say that we are in the end times now; it does not give a date. It only gives us signs to look for. One of the major signs is that of violence. (“You will hear of wars and rumours of wars”—Matt 24:6). The Churches of God have been telling us that violence has been going up. Herbert Armstrong lived during the time of two major conflicts: World Wars I and II. In such a time it was easy to conclude that violence was going up, and for those few years, it was. But we need to look at the whole picture (we were always told to “get the big picture” in any situation) and do the math. We must not assume. The second world war ended a long time ago (69 years ago, in 1945). Since that time violence has gone down, not up. We might now be living in the most peaceful time in history! This comes as a great surprise to people who live by impressions and short-sighted data rather than by historical trends. People rely too much on sensationalist daily news, which focuses on current events and other short-term trends. Some people will refuse to believe that violence is in decline. They will not look at the actual data. The two world wars of the early 20 century were temporary “blips”. They did not lead to the end, and they were not signs of the end. And there are no conflicts in the world today even close to that scale.

More HERE.

What Science HAS Discovered About the Human Mind!

herbllum_edited-1

In his booklet, “What Science Can’t Discover About the Human Mind” (here). Herbert Armstrong stated that the difference between human and animal intelligence could not be explained scientifically, and that this difference was due to the spirit in man. Armstrong also claimed that humans can reason, due to the spirit in man, but that animals can operate only on instinct.

Was Armstrong right? Or can science explain the difference in intelligence between man and animals without the spirit in man?

Herbert Armstrong’s followers need to revise their views on animal intelligence after digesting the material below.

Let’s start by looking at some statements made by Herbert Armstrong (HWA) in the booklets, and my (GL) response.

HWA: “There is virtually no difference in shape and construction between animal brain and human brain.” (p. 3-4)

GL: That statement is ridiculous! There are big differences in shape, construction, size, structure, function, and quality, as we shall see.

HWA: “The brains of elephants, whales, and dolphins are larger than human brain …” (p. 4)

GL: Elephants and whales are large animals, and since the brain plays a vital role in coordination and other body functions, those animals need large brains to coordinate their large bodies. We’ll talk about dolphins later.

HWA: “… the chimp’s brain is slightly smaller [than ours].” (p. 4)

GL: To say that a chimp’s brain in only “slightly” smaller is rubbish. The chimp’s brain is only 1/3 the size of a human brain! That’s a big difference. Why would Armstrong call that only “slightly” smaller? Was Armstrong trying to prove that the difference between humans and chimps must be spiritual, since or brains are (supposedly) only slightly different? Did he intentionally minimize and ignore brain differences in order to confuse the issue?

Size does not tell us everything (as we can see from whales and elephants) but it still makes a difference. How smart would you or I be if we only had 1/3 of our brains?

The human brain has much more cerebral cortex than the chimp’s brain. That’s the part of the brain that we use to think (in particular, we think with our prefrontal cortex). An animal without legs can’t walk, and an animal without a prefrontal cortex simply can’t think. (The exception would be an animal, if any, specially equipped with some special brain region that can perform a similar function).

Continue to read article HERE.

Long Term Prospects for the Churches of God

Objective and Factual Church of God Commentary

by

The Gun Lap


Most people in the Churches of God probably still think that the end of the age is just a few years away. However, Herbert Armstrong said that in about 1930, which is about 80 years ago. If he was that far off then, the COGs today could be just as wrong. The end could still be a long long way off. Let’s take a look at what the world and the COGs will probably look like in another 10, 20 or 80 years.

Though I do not claim to be a prophet inspired by God, I will attempt to look into the future a few years and decades and see where the trends are leading. Yes, things can change, but current trends suggest that the COGs are poised to fade into the sunset.

  • These churches seem to be getting almost no new members from the world, a trend that does not bode well for their long-term survial.
  • The British race is rapidly losing the U.K. and U.S.A. to the massive legal (and in the U.S.A. illegal) immigration of minorities. It will not make sense to talk about the U.K. and the U.S.A. as the birthright nations.
  • According to projections, the white race, about 30% of the world population about 80 years ago, in another 80 years, will decline to about 1-2% of the world’s population due to a low birth rate and interracial marriage brought on by massive immigration. It will no longer be meaningful to talk about British Israelism because there will be no white nations left. In a few decades it will no longer be meaningful to talk about the ten tribes because none of them will exist as separate nations except perhaps the Jews in Palestine who are in the process of ethnically cleansing Palestine of Arabs.
  • There will be few white people left around to care, so the message of British Israelism will fall on the deaf ears of “minorities” (who will then be the vast majority).
  • Traditional Christianity is in decline. Almost all COG members are former traditional Christians, so the pool of potential converts is declining.
  • The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is declining in influence, rather than growing in power as predicted by the COGs. This is in part due to sex scandals. The Catholic Church does not look as powerful and fearsome as it used to. Fewer people will be frightened into attending a COG, and ominous warnings about the RCC will not resonate with people. The RCC is declining in power in Germany in particular, which is contrary to COG predictions of a powerful end-time Catholic-German power block.
  • Bible fundamentalists will likely lose the battle over the legitimacy of the Bible. This further reduces the pool of potential COG members, as well as the appeal of all churches which take the bible literally.
  • The COGs seem to be slowly moving away from Armstrong’s views (liberalizing doctrines on make-up, the end-time Elijah, etc), so even if they survive, they won’t be the same as they were before.
  • More and more people believe in conspiracy theories that the COGs do not support. The COGs will have a hard time reaching these people.
  • The moral and intellectual quality of COG leadership and membership may decline as long as intelligent and sincere ministers and members wise up to errors and church corruption and leave. In other words, when people leave, it may be the best and brightest people who are leaving.
  • The Cold War is over, so what will frighten people into a COG? Terrorism is not as big of a threat, not even close. Furthermore, many people see that the “war on terror” is mostly hype to create an excuse to control the middle east and strip Americans of their rights. Many people see through it.
  • The COGs seem to be declining in numbers and in media power.
  • The COGs are based in the U.S.A., and most of their members are probably lower middle class. As the U.S. middle class seems to stagnating or falling behind financially, with the rich getting richer, this does not bode well for their income base.
  • DNA studies seem to refute BI, and as time goes on, this topic will be more thoroughly researched and the information will be more widely disseminated.
  • The web already contains enough information to refute BI and other COG beliefs, and this trend will likely continue.
  • It’s becoming harder to keep to Christian values as society declines morally. This will make it harder to last in a COG. Also, fewer people seem concerned about declining morality, so fewer people will be attracted to a COG in the first place.
  • Possibly growing anti-Jewish or pro-Palestinian sentiment. The COGs identify closely with the Jews and strongly support the state of Israel, yet Israel is increasingly seen as hostile, war-mongering, and evil. Furthermore, more people seem to be becoming aware of Jewish control over the U.S.A. As reported on Fox news, Israel knew about 911 before it happened but did not warn US intelligence. The holocaust, which Jews constantly milk to get sympathy and support, is slowly fading in significance as it fades farther into the past.
  • Jews seems to be rapidly growing in power, not being cursed for their sins as COG prophecy says they should be. The Jews control Hollywood, the news media, the U.S. Federal Reserve, the U.S. congress, senate, the US “President” (who really should be called the Emperor since the U.S. is a fake democracy with puppet states around the world), and major banks. The Jews already control much of the world economically, and more and more people seem to be waking up to this reality.
  • More COG propheices will fail. For example, Gerald Flurry predicts Iran will attack Europe, but that would be very foolish since Iran has very little power despite PCG fear-mongering to the contrary. Iran is not stupid and suicidal so they are not going to do that. It’s more likely Israel and perhaps the USA will attack Iran and topple the government, or at least destroy much of their military until they are no longer a “threat”.
  • The Old Guard of COG ministers is dying off.
  • The further we get from the year 2000, the more improbable the 6000 year plan of God will seem, eroding a major and long held teaching that implied the end was near.
  • Each time nothing major happens on a 19-year time cycle, the more improbable those time cycles will appear to be, wiping out another major Armstrong doctrine that underpinned the significance of the church he founded.
  • Economic collapse (or perhaps just long-term stagnation) in the U.S. might come, but will not lead to the Great Tribulation. The US dollar is eroding and might even evaporate, but things won’t pan out as predicted by the churches. After a severe downturn the U.S.A. might recover, but likely never return to its former glory. When the end does not come as expected, disappointment will result.
  • China will replace the U.S.A. as the world’s economic engine and, eventually, as the major military power. The big threat may be China, not Germany or Europe.
  • The “big work” done by HWA is so long ago now, that it does not constitute a warning for the last generation. The people who he warned are dying off. If he warned the wrong generation, could HWA still have been the end-time Elijah or the end-time John the Baptist as he claimed? Did the church he found even understand what their purpose was, i.e. why they were called to do a work at that time in history? As time goes on more people are likely to conclude that the answer is no.
  • Another Tkach-style revolt from conservative COG doctrines could take place in some major COG. I.e. more liberal insiders could be waiting in the wings to take over when some leader dies. This would not work on old time members, but they are dying off. It might work on a newer generation who were the children of church members who stayed loyal during the Tkach revolt. The time for this might be ripe in another 20 years or so. As HWA warned, the history of liberalism (1970s) could repeat itself—yet again.
  • The farce of “Climate Change” will likely be exposed for what it is in 20 to 30 years when dire climate predictions don’t pan out. More people may wake up and see that God is not punishing us with worsening weather because the weather won’t be getting worse. (On the other hand, the media have been getting away with that lie for a long time, and maybe still will.)
  • When the oil and gas runs out (the supply seems safe for the next 20 years, but it is not clear what will happen after that), human populations might well collapse to a fraction of the current size. In that scenario, the COG population will likely also collapse. Despite the calamity, the world will go on, contrary to COG predictions. And when church members are starving to death, faith in a God who is supposed to provide for them will be cast aside.
  • In a few decades there will be more minorities in Germany than Germans. It will not make sense to see Germany as Assyria. Racially, they will be a mixed bag just like the rest of Europe, which will no longer be white. The white race is rapidly collapsing.

In conclusion, it appears that the Churches of God, as we know them today, will decline in size until they become very small and insignificant.

Permission for the Painful Truth to republish has been granted.

Should The Churches of God Support The State of Israel?

Should The Churches of God Support The State of Israel?

Copyright © 2012 by Gun Lap


 

Introduction

Herbert Armstrong taught his followers that Christians are not to become involved in the politics of this world. He did not even allow his church members to vote.

The COGs say that when they write about political events and wars, they are writing about events fulfilling prophecy. Writing about these events is one thing, but losing balance and objectivity is another matter. So is taking sides in politics, as some churches are doing. That is not being a good Christian in the COG tradition, and it’s not even good journalism.

Yes some churches of God openly take sides on the Israeli-Palestinian land issue. Vastly out-gunned Palestinians are portrayed as land-poachers while Jews in tanks are portrayed as heroes defending their God-given land.

Not only are some supposedly inspired church leaders taking sides, but they seem to have forgotten who owns that land!

According to British-Israelism, God gave the land of Palestine to the tribe of Joseph, not to the Jews. The Jews therefore, have no right to that land at all. This is something that some Church of God leaders do not seem to understand, even though their founder, Herbert W. Armstrong, at least at one time, made it very clear.

Here is what Armstrong wrote about who rightfully owns Palestine, in his 1955 Plain Truth article Palestine Sputters all over United Nations.

The Jews think they are birthright Israel, and believe this land belongs by God’s birthright to them. And “silly dove” Ephraim (Hos 7:11), not realizing that she is really the birthright tribe of the House of Israel–the nation that God decreed should obtain Palestine December 9, 1917–blindly tried to build a national home for the Jews in this land, and at the same time blundered into a contradictory pledge to establish it as a home for the Arabs! (The Plain Truth, Nov-Dec 1955, page 5, here).

Later in the same article, he reiterates his point:

What a muddle! The Arabs believe Palestine should be theirs because they are descended from Ishmael. The Turks want it because they come from Esau. The Jews want it because they come from Jacob, but through Judah. Yet it belongs to none of them by divine right! It belongs to Great Britain and America, into whose hands God placed it, but who have been so valiantly trying to maintain it for Jew and Arab. (The Plain Truth, Nov-Dec 1955, page 7, here).

In other words, the Jews have no more right to the land than the Arabs! According to Armstrong, the land “belongs to none of them [Arab, Turk or Jew] by divine right!”

That Warm And Fuzzy Feeling (Mostly One-Sided)

Some COG writers, those from the PCG in particular, seem to be losing their composure on this issue, getting indignant and almost hysterical in their condemnation of Palestinians, while getting “warm and fuzzy” in their support for Israel.

Instead of supporting Israel, perhaps the COGs should be outraged that Judah has occupied (in a sense, stolen) Joseph’s land. If the Arabs were taking land from the U.K. or the U.S.A., invading Oklahoma for example, probably all these churches would condemn them as land-poachers. So why do some churches think it is a light thing for the Jews to do it? If anything, stealing land from a brother could be even worse.

Some “ministers of God” think the Jews really should have the land. Herbert Armstrong, at least in 1955, was thinking more logically on this issue than some of his followers do today. They seem to have forgotten what he said and seem to have become swept up in the emotions and political discourse coming from the news media.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Israeli Tanks

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is politics. Churches and their members are not supposed to be involved in politics. But it’s not just politics. Let’s not forget that it is a WAR. There are tanks, guns, and rocket launchers involved. Planes are dropping bombs. People are dying. Civilians are dying. Children are dying.

Much of what goes on in “Journalism” today is politics, as “Journalists” attempt to influence public opinion, rather than merely report events. It is clear that some COGs often write and report in the same spirit, trying to persuade their readers that the players on one side in a conflict are, to a large extent, the good guys, and those on the other side are pretty much the bad guys.

In the PCG’s booklet, A Warm Friend of Israel (subtitled, “Herbert W. Armstrong, The Ambassador Without Portfolio”) we read that “Though he met with the greats of the world from Asia to Africa to Europe and beyond, Herbert W. Armstrong’s greatest affection was for one tiny, new country at the heart of the world. He loved Israel, and Israel loved him back. (p. 7, here)

If such statements are true, it seems that Armstrong also lost his political neutrality somewhere along the way.

Man’s Laws

The COGs place great emphasis on obedience to man’s law, but do the Jews respect man’s law? Not according to Amnesty International which says the Israelis are bulldozing Palestinian homes in defiance of international law:

For years, the Israeli authorities have pursued a policy of discriminatory house demolition, on the one hand allowing scores of Israeli settlements to be built on occupied Palestinian land, in breach of international law, while simultaneously confiscating Palestinian lands, refusing building permits for Palestinians and destroying their homes. The land vacated has often been used to build illegal Israeli settlements. International law forbids occupying powers from settling their own citizens in the territories they occupy. (March 11, 2008, Palestinian Homes Demolished Without Warning, www.amnesty.org, here).

West Bank Bulldozer

Is the PCG just as critical of Israel every time a Palestinian house is bulldozed (as shown in the photo) as they would be if a Palestinian suicide bomber blew up a house owned by Jewish settlers? All I can remember from my days in the PCG is that we were very pro-Israel, and that the Palestinians were always the bad guys for whom we had little sympathy. I hope other COGs are better, and, to some degree they probably are, since Gerald and Stephen Flurry seem to be going off the deep-end. But I would still be surprised if any COG exists which is not at least somewhat biased in favour of Israel. They have all inherited a lot of Armstrong’s views. Despite what he wrote in 1955, later in his life Armstrong seems to have been pretty cozy with the politicians in the state of Israel.

Despite the source, let’s see what the PCG says about Armstrong’s (alleged?) special friendship with the Jewish state.

Mr. Armstrong believed in the glorious future of Jerusalem. He flew to the new nation of Israel more frequently than anywhere else; during one four-year period, he returned about 50 times. (A Warm Friend of Israel, page 5, here).

From that description, we might think Armstrong cared more about the biblically illegitimate (according to British-Israelism) nation of Israel than he did about biblically legitimate nations such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, or other “nations of Israel.” How many times did he visit those nations?

The PCG booklet continues:

The first official to welcome Mr. Armstrong into “a partnership with Israel” was a signer of the 1948 Declaration of Independence, Tourism Minister Moshe Kol. From that initial partnership at the Knesset in 1968 to his death in 1986, Mr. Armstrong met with President Zalman Shazar, Prime Minister Golda Meir, President Ephraim Katzir, Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, Prime Minister Menachem Begin, President Yitzhak Navon, President Chaim Herzog and Prime Minister Shimon Peres. (page 5).

Consider the list of names of Jewish leaders that we just read. How many of them have presided over the illegal destruction of Palestinian homes in the Israeli occupied territories?

The PCG booklet states that “… following his first meeting in the Knesset in 1968, Mr. Armstrong was welcomed by every prime minister and president of Israel for the rest of his life.” (p. 17).

So it sounds like, from 1968 on, HWA was cosy with all the Jewish leaders (criminals?) who were breaking international law by settling Jews in Arab lands (Jacob’s land from the BI perspective). The settlers began moving in soon after the 1967 war.

Note that, according to the PCG, Herbert Armstrong had a “partnership” (p. 5) with a nation of this world–Israel. The bible tells us not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers or to get involved in the politics of this world. Yet, for some reason, the PCG has no problem with Armstrong’s very warm and friendly “partnership” with Israel.

And, if the PCG booklet is accurate, neither did Armstrong.

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (New American Standard Bible, 2 Corinthians 6:14).

Instead of kissing up to Jewish leaders, Armstrong should have been blasting them. Jesus called the Jewish religious leaders of his time snakes (Matthew 3:7; 23:33). Are today’s political leaders much better?

“Cry loudly, do not hold back; raise your voice like a trumpet, And declare to my people their transgression and to the house of Jacob their sins.” (New American Standard Bible, Isaiah 58:1). Though it says “Jacob” here, would God want his messenger to cry aloud against the sins of Jacob and at the same time, partner up with Judah, as if Judah is so much better than Jacob?

Terror

Note that Menachem Begin is on the PCG’s list of Armstrong’s Israeli friends. Begin was head of the Zionist terrorist group that carried out the attack at the British headquarters in Jerusalem which killed 91 people. That is what our “brother” the Jew who was a big friend of Armstrong did to us.

The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out on 22 July 1946 by the militant terrorist right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured. (Wikipedia article King David Hotel Bombing, taken from Wikipedia on Nov 14, 2012).

Page 7 of the PCG booklet shows a picture of Herbert Armstrong and Menachem Begin in a big hug. The photo caption reads “Prime Minister Menachem Begin warmly welcomes Mr. Armstrong in 1980 during one of his many trips to Israel.”

The Wikipedia article elaborates on the Jewish terrorist attack:

The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. The attack, which initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine) and was conceived of as a response to Operation Agatha (in which widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, had been carried out), was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920 to 1948). The explosion caused more casualties than any subsequent bombing carried out in the Arab-Israeli conflict. (Wikipedia article King David Hotel Bombing, Nov 14, 2012).

The article on Menachem Begin, says:

Menachem Begin … was an Israeli politician, founder of Likud and the sixth Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Before independence, he was the leader of the Zionist militant group Irgun, the Revisionist breakaway from the larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah. He proclaimed a revolt, on 1 February 1944, against the British mandatory government, which was opposed by the Jewish Agency. As head of the Irgun, he targeted the British in Palestine. (Wikipedia article Menachem Begin, Nov 14, 2012).

So, Herbert Armstrong’s good friend was the head of a terrorist group. I don’t remember hearing any COG ever mention that, yet some COGs rail against Arab terrorism today. Arab terrorists today are merely using the same tactics of warfare that the Jews used before the Jews were the official government in Palestine. But are the Jews really the official government? Not according to British-Israelism! So, does that mean they are still terrorists? They have nuclear weapons. Does that make them nuclear-armed terrorists?

Should Herbert Armstrong really have been such a good friend to Israel? What about the Churches of God today? Should they support Israel? Should their members really support those churches if they do?

Why did the PCG write this booklet in the first place? Are they hoping to snuggle up to Jewish leaders?

The WCG used to say our mission was to “tell MY people [Jacob and the Jews, not the Arabs] their sins” (Isa 58:1). If these churches are who they claim they are, they have a special mandate to expose the Jews (and the other tribes), rather than turn a blind eye to killing or to get cosy with politicians who order those killings.

If a church is hysterically, or even marginally, taking sides in a war, does that church have blood on its hands?

And if a church member financially supports church publications which adamantly or even marginally favor one side in a war, does that member have blood on his hands?

I guess that would include me because I used to think the same way. I was a victim of biased propaganda and often one-sided reporting from the media and the PCG. The reality is that Israeli treatment of Palestinians has often been positively brutal. Only a person filled with pro-Jewish bias, such as that arising from religious zeal, could support such brutal oppression and repeated defiance of international law.

Lobby Groups

In the U.S.A. the campaign finance laws are such that politicians on both sides are bought and paid for by special interest groups. Because of the wealth and political power of pro-Israel lobby groups in the U.S.A., both parties in the U.S.A. have turned a blind eye to Israeli crimes. These lobby groups are a big reason the US has been Israel’s biggest supporter. To a large degree the news media let the parties and the lobby groups get away with it. One reason they do that is because the media all support the two-party system and both parties are guilty. To expose one party would be to expose both parties. The media, both left and right (and they all seem to have a favorite party) will not so severely discredit their favorite party or the undemocratic two-party system. The news pundits and their employers are among the well-off elites that benefit from the current system.

Probably the most influential lobby group in the U.S.A. is the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Summary

Some COGs have lost sight of their own ideals. They are getting involved in politics (writing to influence public opinion), writing slanted articles on wars, and forgetting what they are supposed to believe about who has a right to the land. If the bible is true, God will hold those church leaders and the members accountable, and anyone else who supports Israel, or any other warring nation or people.


Note on AIPAC.

From the Wikipedia article American Israel Public Affairs Committee

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee … is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. … Describing itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby”, AIPAC is a mass-membership, American organization whose members include Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The New York Times calls it “the most important organization affecting America’s relationship with Israel.” It has been described as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC. Its critics have stated it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a “stranglehold” on the United States Congress with its power and influence. (Nov 14, 2012).

Due to their wealth, AIPAC enjoys enormous power over U.S. foreign policy, even though they have been found guilty of spying on the U.S..

In 2005, a Pentagon analyst pled guilty to charges of passing US government secrets to two AIPAC staffers in what is known as the AIPAC espionage scandal. (same article)

Disclaimer: Wikipedia is usually accurate on purely technical matters, but must be viewed with suspicion on all other matters. I quote it here because it is an easy source for readers to check and because other sources basically corroborate the above position.

Note on Zionism.

Zionism is defined as “a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel” (dictionary.com, emphasis mine). Zionism today is the fight for the preservation of that Jewish state, which is biblically illegitimate in the eyes of British-Israelism. But those who question the “right” of Israel to Palestine are often tarred with the derogatory label “anti-semite”. To question the “right” of Israel to displace Palestinians is to be attacked as a hater and persecutor of Jews. This kind of talk is really just intimidation used to prevent public debate.

Anti-semitism cartoon.

Note on the term “condemn”

Some COG members might object to my use of the term “condemn.” On a number of occasions I have heard COG ministers (e.g. Dennis Leap) and members insist that they never “condemn” anyone. They speak as if “condemn” always means to condemn one to eternal damnation, and only God can do that. If you look up “condemn” in a dictionary you see that one definition is simply to criticize harsly. Some COGs do that constantly.

Note on the Party System

I call the two party system undemocratic because politicians (“representatives”) are supposed to represent the people who voted them in, not the party bosses who set policy for the party. All political parties are undemocratic. Anyone who believes in democracy should probably vote for a independent candidate who is not a member of any party.

Note on David Ben-Ariel.

David Hoover, once a member of Gerald Flurry’s Philadelphia Church of God, was a staunch supporter of Israel and Jerusalem (under Jewish control). He changed his last name to Ben-Ariel. Mr. Ben-Ariel, before he passed away, was a fairly prolific COG blogger. He often described himself as a Christian Zionist. Zionism is the term for the supposed “right” of the Jews to a homeland in Palestine.

The “blurb” for his book Beyond Babylon on Amazon.com (Nov 14, 2012) reads as follows:

Mr. Ben-Ariel clearly has a God-given love for the Jews and the nation of Israel. His Israeli lawyer has stated that David’s “future is linked with that of the Jews,” and Gershon Salomon, chairman of the Temple Mount Faithful says, “God has some special task” for him. His sacred bond with the land and people of Israel has been strengthened over the years by his service as a volunteer on eight kibbutzim (collective farms) throughout the Holy Land, including during Operation Desert Storm.

Note that David had a love “for the Jews and the nation of Israel.” I interpret “nation of Israel” here to mean the nation in the Middle East, not “modern Israel.” Why did David love the nation of Israel if Armstrong essentially said that the nation of Israel had no right to exist in the eyes of God? It seems to me that David had forgotten, or never read, what Armstrong said in the 1955 Plain Truth that I quote in this article.

Regarding his change of name, Ben-Ariel wrote,

… Isaiah 29:1 … reveals that Ariel is a nickname for Jerusalem! I now understand why God the Father had chosen Ariel for me. Anyone who knows me knows that Jerusalem is always on my mind (Jer. 51:50), especially after my first visit there to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) in 1980. God has shown me that He’s stirred me up and given me a burning desire for Jerusalem and Israel (Isa. 62:1, 6-7). I finally realized that God was calling me a “son [Ben] of Jerusalem [Ariel].” (Article Source: here)

It seems likely that the eccentric Zionist Mr. Ben-Ariel was suffering from the negative effects of his former close association with the eccentric Zionist Gerald Flurry, and was still partly under Flurry’s spell. Both men thought that God was using them for a special purpose and both were hysterical supporters of Israel.

Link HERE to Gun Laps Website