Email To The Editor
(Page 65)
(Mail from Kooks, Nuts and Loonies is on another page)
I hope you remember me. I did a recent search on my name just to see what would come up. I see my name is still on your hatemail section. I do not know how to prove to you that those emails were not originated from me (my fingers). I tried to do what you asked but is hard to find out who was using my computer at the time. I use to leave myself logged in all the time but not anymore. If I write what you asked will this solve the problem? I'm not afraid of an employer looking me up, just friends and family then asking me what the deal is. If you want me to write something that will get my last name and my office email off your site and search engines I will do it. Just give me the description of what you want me to say.
Christian
REPLY:
A sincere apology will do. No placing the blame on someone else.
Editor
REPLY:
I'm very sorry for the trouble and time you spent on having to read these
emails. (Page 32, Page 56) They are pure nonsense and a complete waste of webspace.Christian
Editor
My comments on your article below:
As I have indicated in some of my previous communications, once exiting the cult I noticed that outside the cocoon was the same as IN the cocoon, except, that outside the cocoon WE HAVE THE CHOICE to accept or not accept....i.e. our minds are our own........(also refer to John O's "Unrepentant tares everywhere")
You have hit the nail on the head...
You get two kinds of idiots...1)idiots who never notice other human beings, and never bother to apologize...2) and the second group, who make a big EVANGELISTIC show of "being sorry", BUT never recompense... here's an example:
Once, I was renting a place, a type of commune, with the owner staying in the same house...he had a number of rooms unoccupied, without even curtains in these rooms...I saw this as a security risk, and put up some curtains in these rooms...then for some dumb reason, the owner removed the curtains and put them on the floor... I mentioned the security risk...this was ignored...
Later, soon afterwards, we were burgled...I was fuming, because of the owner's stupidity...I had a lot of expensive stuff stolen... also, I had only just moved in, and had not made insurance arrangements yet...
The owner made a big deal of how sorry he was...he even promised to replace some of my stolen goods...later, he said that since the insurance company did not pay out what he expected, there was no way he could recompense me in any way...there we have one of the MANY examples: people do not WANT TO CLEAN UP THEIR OWN MESS!!! It really has NOTHING TO DO WITH APOLOGIZING...(OR NOT)...people do not like to BE ACCOUNTABLE, TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY...they continually pass the buck, make excuses, break promises...AND THEN REFUSE TO MAKE UP FOR THEIR DAMAGE!!!
Most people today do not even have the GUTS to confront those who are thoughtless, or who affect our lives in adverse ways...they see this as "being negative" or "complaining"...the reality is that it is a type of WIFE-BATTERING SYNDROME..."it's not that bad" etc .
What happened in The Worldwide Church of God happens all the time...people ignoring people, people ignoring the little holes in the dykes, people ignoring opportunities for improvement, people stepping over pieces of paper which could easily be picked up...people tipping waiters who do nothing except bring your food, people who tip waiters who bring your food even though it wasn't what you ordered, people walking past things which could easily be rectified....YEAH, it's much easier just to take it!!!
And those who protest get labeled as critical, negative, in a bad mood, got out on the wrong side of the bed etc etc.
In my country, service levels are dropping...even when you spend tons of money, as a CLIENT, you still get treated like a nobody!
I purchased a Toyota from a dealer...it begins like this:
They promise to have the new car ready within a few days...they promise to phone you...
They DON'T PHONE, when you make an enquiry, they make some excuse...
Eventually, THREE WEEKS LATER, YOU phone and they tell you "your car is ready"....
You get to the dealer...the car is NOT ready....he shows you another vehicle....it is dirty, the carpets are oil stained, and it is CERTAINLY NOT READY FOR COLLECTION....where is the car that I purchased? Oh, no, it's been sold....but but this is a great car....
Since I had ALREADY LOST 3 WEEKS in time, and the other vehicle had been sold to someone else, I decided to purchase the vehicle...long story short, since that time I have receive absolutely PUTRID SERVICE from this dealer, and they don't care ONE BIT!
Their excuse is "but we have so many customers"
The treatment has been consistently, so bad, I wish I had the contact details of the top guy in Japan, so that I could relay my experience to them!!!
The point is this: who cares about apologies? Make good your damage!!!
Andre
----- Original Message -----
From: <Baugh@zeonchemicals.com>
To: <thept@mac.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:22 PM
Subject: SICK
YOU ARE SICK WITH LIES - WHAT MORE CAN WE SAY.
REPLY:
YOU WROTE:
WHAT MORE CAN WE SAY.
REPLY:
Well, you could say: "This is a lie and here is the proof that it is a lie." But, that may be beyond your mental capacity.
I have from the very beginning, many years before you got a look at the truth, offered to change anything on my site that can be proven to not be the truth. That is certainly much more than you will ever get from any of the xCG's. And, I have changed anything that was proven to be untrue. You know what? I have had to change practically NOTHING.
So, now run away with your hands over your eyes and close your mind and don't be poisoned by the truth.
Editor
REPLY:
You obviously knew nothing about Mr. Herbert Armstrong except for what is going on now in Pasadena by a man allowing himself to be led by Satan. Are you ashamed of your name?
REPLY:
I obviously know more about Herbie than you do. Maybe you would do well to investigate whether you are wrong or not.
Are you ashamed of your name? I wonder who would get a message about your being a member of a cult if I sent it to anyone@zeonchemicals.com? Of course, if you are the owner, you would have nothing to worry about.
Editor
Editor,
You wrote to "Free Thought Today":
"I don't know how the wording "under God" has been allowed to stay in the Pledge of Allegiance up to this point. But, now, I would say there is no hope of removing it at all. How unpatriotic."It now appears as though there is hope it will be removed from the pledge. What do you think? Will the conservative supreme court rule like the California court did?
Gregory
REPLY:
YOU WROTE:
It now appears as though there is hope it will be removed from the pledge. What do you think?
REPLY:
Even if the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional, look at our illustrious Congress standing out on the steps of the Capitol, saying the Pledge and singing God Bless America. If one of them wanted to amend the Constitution do you think any of them would have the courage to stand in front of that avalanche? I doubt it. This could lead to a Constitutional Convention that would take away many of our rights. Who knows what else they could find to change?
We may soon find that we have our own version of Afghanistan and the Taliban, Christian version, right here in the good ol' USA.
Editor
Editor,
Since finding your website, accidentally, a year or so ago, I make a point of checking every few months to see what's new and how things are going. I am amused and occasionally saddened by some of the articles and emails.
I found your website at just the right time. I had stopped attending the WWC several years previously but had never "given up my beliefs". I left because of the congregation. One day I simply looked around and discovered that God's Spirit had not worked any miracles in the people I had been associating with for the last 15 years. People were what they were. No ones nature had been improved on, difficult people were still difficult. There was a decided lack of christianity within the church. Being a spiritual widow I still had to sign up to be invited out for the "holy days". This was a more involved decision than what I have time to go into, suffice it to say that I was disillusioned and hurt. I simply stopped attending. No one called, no one was interested in why I wasn't attending. I did talk to one of my old acquaintances, I tried to explain my reasons, she listened and then later I found out how "sad she was that I refused to talk to her". I felt better after I stopped attending but had horrible guilt and fear. I still believed the church doctrines were correct and that now I was not only condemned but that my family would be going down with me. It's true, my major motivation for being in the church at all was fear. I wanted my family safe.
Then I found your site. What a day that was. I read until my eyes were blurry. I emailed my daughter and had here check it out. I didn't hear from her for days afterwards and then she told me she had been so nauseated by the whole thing that she just couldn't think about it. My sons were shocked. All of my children had stopped attending either before I did or along with me but they, like me, had still kept a little of the church doctrine tucked inside our minds. And now, thanks to you, it's gone and I have never felt so good in my life.
When I read the hostile emails I do understand their attitude, it's the same one I would have had prior to leaving the church. My whole point in writing to you is to let you know just how important I feel your website is. I know there are a lot of people still caught up in the tangle of religion, plenty who do not want to be un-tangled, but for everyone of us that you help towards a healthy, healed and burden free life, I just want to thank you. I hope you never become so discouraged by the hate mail, that you give up on this website. I'm better, but I've got a ways to go before herbie and his asinine doctrines are gone from my mind. Again, I thank you, and by the way, my husband thanks you.
Marsha
Hi:
I discovered your site just recently and haven't been able to stop reading all the interesting material. I grew up in the church and have some bad experiences also.
I was reading the material concerning makeup and remembered something my father once told me. He was a deacon and worked for the church purchasing department. I was visiting in Pasadena during the feast after makeup was abandoned in 1981. My father told me that the reason why Mr. Armstrong changed his ruling was because he had asked Ramona to cut down on the heavy amount of makeup that she was wearing. Instead of cutting down she wore even more. That made Mr. Armstrong very angry. This could account for the long lapse in time from the time it was allowed (again) to the time he changed it in 1981.
I was attending the Houston West church at the time and didn't cut out wearing makeup all together as I'm a strawberry-blonde and my features are light. I saw a lot of women's self esteem completely deteriorate after that. The whole church air changed and it wasn't long after that I left. I came back after 15 years when the elder Tkach was in charge, but left again several years later after he made all the changes. It went completely downhill from there. The Houston West was dissolved and everyone went to the Houston North church. The next thing I knew most of the congregation funneled into United (most all of the old-timers). The Houston North of the Worldwide Church of God is practically nonexistent today. It's rumored that the existing congregation, doesn't even contribute enough to cover the minister's salary.
Thanks for your site. I too have issues dealing with Worldwide and have been able to make peace with some of it since discovering your site. It helps to realize how human HWA truly was and that there are a lot of others who too have also suffered. The comedy section was great!
Blessings,
Pamela
Hello:
After reading the article "Fleecing The Flock" in your web site and after seeing that $25,000 was spent for "furnishings, upholstery, drapes, carpets, and misc," in Richard Plache's house, I remembered a little story.
It was in the summer of 1971. I was 16 and my mother had died recently (because of the health laws wasn't allowed to take any drugs and died of a brain hemorrhage). I went to Blair High School which was within walking distance of the Whitman's home. My father worked for the church/college and insisted I go there and then he's pick me up on his way home from work.
Mrs. Whitman cleaned the Plache's home (He was the Dean of Students then). Although her daughter and I were to wait in the pool area, I did get to take a sneak peek inside the home, but that was all. When I stuck my head in and we were about to leave, the last thing Mrs. Whitman had to do was rake the shag carpeting in the dining room and living rooms ... dig this ... so the carpet pile would all be going the same direction and the vacuum streaks and footprints would not be visible. When I saw Richard Plache's name in the story and the fact that some of this money was spent for carpet, I remembered this story. I can still see the inside of the house and the carpet. Amazing!
Blessings,
Pamela
Dear Editor,
When I read the 'Under God' Iconoclast Looks to Next Targets" article this morning, I thought you would be able to sympathize with Mike Newdow about the death threats he has received from Christians for his legal work regarding the "under God" clause in the pledge of allegiance. These Christians ought to consider another clause in the pledge of allegiance: "with liberty . . . for all." But like the Puritans, they are only concerned about liberty for their own beliefs, not anyone else's.
Maybe this could be a new challenge for Mr. Newdow--get the history books in public schools to quit telling the fable that the Puritans came to this country because they were seeking religious freedom. They sought a place where they could set up a pure [hence their name, "Puritans"] society, free of any taint of Catholicism. Anyone [e.g., Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams] who believed in a creed that was different than their brand of pure religion was booted out [or in Salem (ah yes, the city of peace), declared a witch and killed]. It was a closed economy--jobs and business opportunities only went to those who had proven themselves pre-destined or chosen to be saved. How ironic. It sounds a little like the so-called mark of the beast.
Kathy
Hi there, John B:
Just read your article "One Nation Under Who?"
Personally, I have no problem with the "under God" statement being in there, because it is NOT religious. The separation of church and state still stands, even with that statement included.
The reason - as I see it - is because God or Whatever is NOT religious. No one has been able to define God, but when that nonsense starts, we get "religion."
As I see it, God is only the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent cosmic electro magnetic force (or whatever - go figure) that's behind all life - seen and unseen. God does NOT go to any church.
Religion starts when men like the preachers of today define God as speaking through Jesus or some modern day apostle or prophet. That's religion, and then I would have to agree. We don't need a definition in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The phrase "under God" to me is nothing more than the acknowledgement of some Creative Force (re: The Declaration of Independence), but it doesn't not define as to "how" we might choose to worship IT. That's an allowance made by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Then we can do what the heck we like with our own individual ideas of worship. And, I fully agree, such specifics don't belong in the Pledge of Allegiance.
But I think that "under God" is so vague (because no one really knows God or what IT is), that reference to this term, in the Pledge, is only a common sense acceptance that something is bigger than us.
But I don't see it has anything to do with religion. So, I'd say, leave it in. What the heck? Like I said: God doesn't go to church.
Best 2 U 4 now. JohnO
REPLY:
JohnO,
Good to hear from you again. Thanks for your response to the article. Basically, I agree with everything you said.
At the outset of the article I stated that I was initially outraged at the court's decision. Only after reading the details and thinking on it did I come to the conclusion that it didn't matter. My main point has less to do with the contents of the Pledge than the intolerance of Christianity.
I am not offended if the words remain in the Pledge. The Pledge is to the flag, not to any deity. The spirit of the Pledge is not changed by the inclusion or the omission of those two words. I have no problem leaving them in or taking them out.
My only problem is that I hate to see Political Correctness win another round. Political Correctness is an assault on American Patriotism; its proponents are anti-American and its aims are the destruction of our way of life. I really hate to see those bastards win even when I (rarely) agree with them, but aside from that, I can take the Pledge either way.
Have a good 'un, John B.
John O.,
I forwarded your message to John Bowers but I will also take issue with your statement that the words "under god" are no big deal.
I know you don't check out the forum very often so here is one of the messages that I posted recently on this subject.
_________________
Well, I, for one, am thankful that there are people like Mr. Newdow who will put their money where their mouth is. I would be very happy if he succeeded in getting rid of the christian "god" from everything related to our government.
It is really interesting to see the mindless arguments trying to support leaving the words in the POA. It was put in there, in 1954, to show that our nation is religious as compared to the evil communists who were godless. That was its very purpose. It should never have been put in then and it should be removed now.
It is important. This is a state sponsoring a religion. If it is no big deal, why not take it out? Oh, that IS a big deal. Let the mindless godhuggers put the words in instead of my having to leave the words out. As always, religion is divisive and should have nothing to do with our government or our patriotism. This very debate shows how wrong it is to have the words in there.
This is one of the lynchpins of the whole debate. If this thing can be successfully fought, the whole rest of it will fall also. That is why the godhuggers will fight this tooth and nail.
I also think it is a big deal for the kids to have to say this pledge in school or be singled out. I would think that all the younger people that had to go to the study hall or principal's office or whatever, because their religion wouldn't allow them to take part in any Christmas, Easter, Pagan, etc. activities, would know what it is like to be singled out as different and see that this is just plain wrong.
I also think that the media has deliberately confused the issue. It is not the POA that is the problem; it is the words "under god."
***********************************
Also, regarding your statement: "The phrase "under God" to me is nothing more than the acknowledgement of some Creative Force"
Just because you can fit it into your beliefs does not mean that it should be in the POA. It does not fit in with everyone's beliefs so it should be left out. It is deliberately divisive. It deliberately divides god-believers from god-un-believers. This should have nothing to do with our patriotism or love of country or willingness to pledge our allegiance to our country.
If they want to leave the words in there, I would demand some proof of the existence of this god and, on top of that, some proof that this "god" actually cares about the United States. I submit that you cannot even prove that. It is a matter of faith, meaning "I have no proof at all, and I just WANT to believe it."
Respectfully, Editor
REPLY:
So, what I take exception to, is the promotion of some form of God of religion (politically correct), that obviously doesn't give a diddly about anyone except Its own evolution. The phrase "under God" doesn't belong in the POG, supposedly IF it's tied in with any religion. But I've never thot of it being that way. I've always regarded that expression as some sort of general term that helped keep everyone happy.
Newdow is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but I've NOT perceived in recent years, that such an expression is religious - altho some people nowadays will certainly take it that way. He did, and I can respect his opinion, but I don't, simply because of the way I choose to see (or ignore) "God." Since our forefathers were basically Deists, I now take the expression "God" to be impersonal, cosmic energy. Nothing more. It doesn't make any difference if I believe or not. Energy will continue regardless. And true, IT doesn't give a damn about anyone. But, then again, neither does any "religion."
There is no Christian God, or Moslem God, or Jewish God, etc. We know that. There is only energy, life, cosmic law, and original thot - whatever. That's my scientific viewpoint. Man has conceived (as you know) the rest of the debacle. And true, this energy cannot give a hoot about anything at all - anymore than electricity can. Try standing in the middle of a nuclear blast and praying to "energy" to save you.
That's why I've not given much (if any) thot about what's said (re: the "under God") in the POG. I feel it makes no difference to the end result. It's only man's limited perspective that's made "God" some form of damned religion. I also feel that it's fundamentally man's perception of any such "God" that's all screwed up. Religion has done that. But if it's good for votes or money, then some moron will always promote IT as a loving, kind, and benevolent Father that loves only one group of loyal, dumb followers. Big example - Worldwide Church of God.
Many members of the US Congress, for political reasons, regard that God=Jesus, and that is rubbish to the extreme. But - that's politically "correct" in most of the Western world. They use that expression, probably to gain votes, and certainly, that's definitely wrong. But, what's right about politics, anyhow?
But simply saying that there's something bigger, and we don't know what IT is, well, that's Ok with me. I haven't a clue either, even tho I've taken some steps to logically evaluate the overall creative forces and innumerable possibilities. However, I feel that religion must never be equated - in any case - with Impersonal, uncaring energy. That turns the Impersonal into the Particular, and from there we can launch ourselves into another inquisition.
Incidentally, I agree with JohnB about "political correctness." It's put a millstone around our neck. It took a firm hold in the Clinton years, and will damage us for years 2 come.
Best 4 now, and thanx 4 the input and the Forum article. JohnO.
REPLY:
YOU WROTE:
The phrase "under God" doesn't belong in the POA, supposedly IF it's tied in with any religion. But I've never thot of it being that way
REPLY:
Well, I think you should base what you think on the facts and what is truly intended. It is clearly a religious intent otherwise the religious people would not be getting their collective panties in a big old wad. This is not a country of majority rule. Even if 99.999999% of the people looked at it just like you and it doesn't insult their beliefs because it fits in with what they believe, it doesn't make it RIGHT. The very test of substituting other gods, Spirits, the Devil, Humpty Dumpty, in the place of this "god" that is supposed to be acknowledged, to see if it is then offensive to anyone proves that it is religious in intent and has no place in any Pledge of Allegiance. If it is an insult to their "god sensibilities" to take it out then it is an insult to others to leave it in. It is religious jingoism. Our government should have no part in acknowledging any "god's" existence unless they can prove it, otherwise it is religion. They should also get rid of the "in god we trust" on our money. These things should never have been there in the first place and, until the 1950's, they never were. They were deliberately added to make a difference between the horrible unbeliever nations and the believer nation. This was obviously religious in nature.
I don't care if it is politically correct or politically incorrect. It is Constitutionally incorrect. That is what matters.
Best, Editor
REPLY:
Hi Editor:
All I am saying here, is that I never thot of the "God" statement in that religious context. It just never occurred to me. I never thot of it as being religious in any sense. Religion most probably does. They always make their own rules. However, there maybe many, many folks out there who do not equate "God" with religion. Probably it's never occurred to them either. I've met many over the years who feel this way, but I don't know the overall feel for it. Anyhow the religious right will always get their bowels into a knot over something. This is their latest "cause." "The wheel that squeaks the loudest . . . " etc. And true, IF the intent is religious, then it's wrong. As Buddha wisely said: "Go neither to the right nor the left, but walk the middle line."
It's certainly true about the government proving that God exists IF they are to use it in any worshipful sense. That would be Constitutionally the correct thing to do. They must prove it. However, I'm sure they won't bother.
But, from a legal point of view, I've no idea of what the original intent was in this case. That's what will be the argument here. What the hell is "God" anyhow? IT certainly doesn't give a damn about us. As I've said before, I believe in "God" (or what is commonly labeled "God"), but only in the sense of Impersonal Life, Thot, and Cosmic, electro-magnetic Energy, with which we automatically meld, and I definitely DON'T think of It in any religious connotation. Man labels God. I'm not. Man calls the unknown: "God," and then expects us to worship It in man's own bigoted way, which is the path of religion. I think this is what could be happening in this case. It's popular to be religious, and it garners mucho votes. I'd rather have a more practical feel for the subject, and try to look at the whole perspective objectively. That's why - since I don't regard "God" as religious - I've mainly ignored the matter . . . and the wacky religious right.
Certainly, at this time (but I ignorantly once thot differently), I now see this "God" with no religious connotation. True, it IS unconstitutional if It's used and manipulated into ANY religious context. Religion would have it that way, but as far as I'm concerned, they don't affect my personal thinking.
But were the "powers-to-be" (who added the "God" statements to the POA and the money inscriptions) simply reflecting, what they believed to be the thots of the Founding Fathers? Did they dismiss God as some impersonal entity with NO religious connotation? I don't know. Since the Declaration of Independence talks about a "creator," then I suppose these legislature guys saw that as meaning "God" (their version), and due to pressure from the religious right (= votes), then they figure that means their own religious interpretation of It - which is contrary to the general meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution which talks only about the ESTABLISHMENT of any religion and its exercise. This is probably where the expression of "In God we Trust" comes from. I haven't studied the whole history as to the background reasons, but I'm sure that such history would be warped to suit the general thinking. There will be no straight answers here. If we get into the argument of the "intent" of the lawmakers, then we're sure as hell gonna have a messy legal argument. But I think it's out of everyone's hands by now, despite our individual and personal feelings on the matter.
If the arguments about "intent" ever do arise, then we're gonna have the Constitutional lawyers, the Legislature, the Judicial Branch, the Executive Branch, and no doubt the Supreme Court meddling around in the matter. As if there aren't already plenty of other things to worry about.
I don't know how many people would honestly regard an impersonal God (energy, etc.) as a binding pressure to follow religion, or how many would simply regard it as an open door to believe what they want. Who knows? I'm not psychic. Anyhow, it's all gonna get down to a matter of LAW and its final ruling, and that overall law is all so screwed up that they won't make the right decision anyhow. The "law" will follow - what they believe - to be the intent of the matter, and you KNOW full well where that will lead.
Granted, the promo of any religion in any form should be ousted, because (as you mentioned) it is indeed UNconstitutional, and it's all nothing but a bunch of millstones around necks of all followers of religion. But how will any legislature view the expression: "God?" True - they'll probably bow to the religious right. Again - that's UNconstitutional. They must stay neutral, altho I doubt many of them will have the guts to do that. I feel that all religions are cults, in one form or another, and most probably, the Legislature will meekly follow. But where does all this religiosity stop? We're so used to using religious banter in our everyday conversations and think nothing of it. I use "Jesus" everyday, in expletives, and never think anything religious about it.
Anyhow, the way I see it, the government's gonna take out (or leave in) the statement. They'll do what they want. As usual, we'll have little or no control on what they're gonna do. If the intent is religious - and they're bowing to the religious right - then it's decidedly wrong. It IS unconstitutional. Yes. But what was the original intent? I can't read their minds as to what the Legislature originally thought was the meaning of the word: "God." I can only state my viewpoint of how I perceive the matter and my own perception of Life's overall energy. The lawyers will no doubt argue this one, at taxpayer's expense, of course. They've all shredded the Constitution so much by now that we have nothing but a tattered flag and memories of days long gone.
Thanx 4 the input. Good chatting. Blessings and best. John.
What a treat to find your website.
I left the Worldwide Church of God 7 years ago in 1995 after having attended since 1984. Since leaving I constantly ask myself how I could have been so stupid to have gotten involved with what I now recognize is a cult. The revelations about the organization on your site do not surprise me as much as they disgust me. If I had known about the sordid past of the group I would never have joined. Now I just harbor shame at the part I played. Although I was witness to much abuse by the ministry I never did anything about it.
Thanks for the courage to have this website.
Jan
I just wanted you to know that I really enjoyed your site. I have always been a very reasonable man so I have no story as epic as yours, but I cannot stress the relief I have that I'm not the only one who sees the illusions everyone seems to run around hodge-podge dealing with Christian beliefs --most don't know what they really are or where they come from. Thank you for a wonderful site.
Bryant
Editor:
I salute the Painful Truth and its editor for the integrity you displayed by admitting you had made an error in the Bernie/BMW story. Forty years in the Worldwide did not offer many examples of integrity, and when I see one I can't walk on by without saying hello.
When was the last time anyone from any of the Worldwide Church of God+/COGs ever publicly admitted an error?
Way to go, sir! You are clearly an honest and honorable man.
John B
REPLY:
YOU WROTE: When was the last time anyone from any of the Worldwide Church of God+/COGs ever publicly admitted an error?
REPLY: Well, that is because God doesn't make mistakes; he just reveals "new truth."
Maybe we should have approached the error that way? "God has revealed NEW TRUTH: it was not B$ who had the BMW. It was a different Bernie."
He, he...................
Ed
My wife and I were members of Worldwide Church of God for 15 years and took what they said as the gospel truth. We gave up our whole lives to this group and at the time it was the least we could do, so they said. We gave the very best time of our lives away to a group of, in my opinion, thieves. I agree with you when you say they never really as much as apologized to the membership for their abuse. It was more like a "sorry" now we said it lets get on with our lives. I have given thought to actually taking them to court and suing them for spiritual blackmail.
Do you think if enough of former members would do that, that it would stick? I know they took my wife and I for over a hundred thousand if you count the house I gave up pension I don't have and the mental suffering We went through over the past years since we left.
We left after "the change" because our minister thought it wrong to go out to nursing homes and preach the gospel. He said is was simply a waste of time.
Today after about 4 years of leaving the Worldwide Church of God, I am an ordained minister working in a ministry as a chaplain that holds church services at 12 different homes, certainly no thanks whatsoever to the Worldwide Church of God.
I would be willing to talk to others about the forming a group to sue them and try to recover some of the money they stole from the members.
Thanks for your web page
John
REPLY:
YOU WROTE:
Do you think if enough of former members would do that, that it would stick?REPLY:
Well, I am just waiting for someone to find a lawyer that wants to make some money. I'm not pursuing it myself but I would sure join in with anyone that wanted to do it. I could probably find 40,000 other people that would do it too.If anyone is interested, I suggest that they find a lawyer. Don't look for the sleaziest one you can find because they may just be employed by the Worldwide Church of God. Go one step above that. Tell him he gets 50% of whatever he wins. We all split the rest. We'll be further ahead than if these crooks take off with all of our money. With the way courts are today, who is to say what may happen? Try "undue influence."
Editor
Editor,
I do understand why you MUST keep this site up forever. I emailed this Armstrong supporter this little message after reviewing your site for some time now. I was in the cult for seven years. I also was a Jehovah Witness for eight years. I am free from all cults today. I consider people like you a blessing. Truth to me is not coming to the definitive answers about the mystery of life. Truth is exposing lies, mythology and superstition. You and your contributors have done an excellent job finding the truth. You deserve a medal. Gregory
I sort of stumbled on your Web site today and was so impressed with your honesty and determination that I've added a link to your site to my own, Lotus and Rose -
www.lotusandrose.com.Lotus and Rose is a site that tries to encourage folk -all kinds of people -to find their own way. Among the various pages of the site, I've included one with links to other sites that provide a wide variety of spiritual insights and ways of looking at things. The links page is called "Petals." You'll see the icon for it in a frame at the top of the page after you enter the site. At the top of the "Petals" page, I include a sort of Surgeon General's warning ("Beware") about walking the spiritual path. I've included a link to your site among the "Bewares."
I just thought you might like to know the link is there. If you have any objection to being included, please let me know and I'll remove the link as soon as possible.
I was encouraged, oddly, amidst all the negative info regarding the "Armstrong experience," that there really are people who are thinking and finding their own way. I ran the gauntlet of churches, too, until I realized the truth was "in there" rather than "out there."
A friend,
Russ
Email By Pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Your contributions to this page are more than welcome. We will not publish your full name unless you attack us and make threats, then you go on the "Hate Mail" page and we will publish your name and email address.
Copyright
The content of this site, including but not limited to the text and images herein and their arrangement, are copyright © 1997-2003 by The Painful Truth. All rights reserved.Do not duplicate, copy or redistribute in any form without prior written consent.
