Email To The Editor, Page 91

------------------

11/20/05 -- Reply to Tim G.

Greetings,

Original! Ambassador College, right? What year?

I accidentally stumbled across your site.

Really? You sure one of your parishioners didn't give you a heads-up?

I don't know whether you'll take this as 'hate' mail or not. I really don't care either way even though I don't intend it as such.

Of...course you don't.

However, I am truly and honestly amazed how a person, or a group of people can espouse such hatred, mostly based on pure innuendo and even dishonesty.

Really? Haven't you heard of Headquarters ministers? Herbert Armstrong? Et al?

I have no clue at all what the "Armstrong Cult" ever did to you to instill such a hatred, and such bitterness.

That statement proves one of two things: Either you haven't read a word on this website, or you are patently dishonest.

Having grown up in the "cult" I can say from an actual first-hand basis that you are way off base, and are actually being quite un-truthful on many fronts. I truly don't mind busting people when they deserve it, however, I do believe in using truth to do it. You, sadly are a bit short in that department.

Let's see, you are a minister, right? Preaching elder at least. Which splinter cult do you belong to?

I can equally understand being a dissenter... as you and your "cult" obviously are.

Of course you understand it. You understand completely!

More power to you. However, dissension doesn't mean distortion.

We don't distort anything. That's what your kind do. You are simply unhappy that we caught you at it.

I thank God for showing me a strong set of values at an early age, and if it was the "Armstrong Cult" that did it, yay for that.

Values like incest, child rape, grand theft, drunkenness, whore-mongering, browbeating, slavery...are those the values Armstrong taught you?

I looked over your "nobody has apologized" section and saw photos of many ministers that I have known personally.

Did you find yourself in there?

These have all been fine people doing and teaching what they thought right.

All of them? Without exception? Are you absolutely positive about that?

I personally find it atrocious that you can besmirch (good word, huh?) their good names to further whatever your agenda may be. (And other than appearing to be bitter, I truly can't determine what that might be).

That's because, once again, you probably haven't read more than ten words on this site. There are dozens of articles, no, hundreds. Take a couple of hours. Read some, then maybe you'll get a clue.

Enjoy your First Amendment rights as you seem bent on pushing them to the edge.

"While we can"? Is that what you were about to say? You don't believe in democracy, do you? No, the "church" believed in autocratic theocracy. Still does, I'll bet, where you live. You'd love nothing better than to bust down our doors and haul us away in the middle of the night, just to put an end to our "first amendment rights" which you so obviously loathe. Well, don't worry, we are enjoying it to the max. Too bad you can't be happy for us.

And now that I've actually wasted the time to sit here and write this, I will send it, however, I am a bit ashamed at myself for wasting the time. People of your ilk are truly not worth it. Shame on me. Big shame.

That's right. Hall of Shame. I'll bet your portrait is prominently displayed on the walls, isn't it? Or maybe your old man, assuming you might be a preacher's kid.

Here's a challenge for you, cult boy...read a couple of articles on this website and then present evidence proving they are lies. If you really think your time is so valuable, do something useful with it. Prove us wrong. Maybe you'll earn yourself an extra couple of virgins in heaven (no, wait, that's the OTHER fundamentalist hate group, isn't it? Sorry for the confusion, but you fundamentalist haters all look the same to me!)

In the meantime, thank you for writing to Painful Truth. It's always good to have some samples of the mindset for people to see. We often talk about the superior, snotty, condescending attitudes of the ministry, but some people who weren't there perhaps find it hard to believe. Your letter will serve as a glowing example. The only thing you forgot to add is "how sad it is to see what becomes of those who lose sight of the goal", or some such crap. Be sure to add that to your next communication, as it's a standard part of the format.

Tim G

Nashville

John B

Freedomville

------------------

11/14/05 -- Big Shame

Greetings,

I accidentally stumbled across your site. I don't know whether you'll take this as 'hate' mail or not. I really don't care either way even though I don't intend it as such.

However, I am truly and honestly amazed how a person, or a group of people can espouse such hatred, mostly based on pure innuendo and even dishonesty. I have no clue at all what the "Armstrong Cult" ever did to you to instill such a hatred, and such bitterness.

I can equally understand being a dissenter... as you and your "cult" obviously are. More power to you. However, dissension doesn't mean distortion.

I thank God for showing me a strong set of values at an early age, and if it was the "Armstrong Cult" that did it, yay for that. I looked over your "nobody has apologized" section and saw photos of many ministers that I have known personally. These have all been fine people doing and teaching what they thought right. I personally find it atrocious that you can besmirch (good word, huh?) their good names to further whatever your agenda may be. (And other than appearing to be bitter, I truly can't determine what that might be).

Enjoy your First Amendment rights as you seem bent on pushing them to the edge.

Tim G

Nashville

You wrote:
"Having grown up in the "cult" I can say from an actual first-hand basis that you are way off base, and are actually being quite un-truthful on many fronts. I truly don't mind busting people when they deserve it, however, I do believe in using truth to do it. You, sadly are a bit short in that department."

Really?
I am? Me and the hundreds of other contributing authors on this website are all " a bit short on truth", eh?

Ok, tell me, and be SPECIFIC: One example of something on the website that's provably untrue. Let's go...

"However, I am truly and honestly amazed how a person, or a group of people can espouse such hatred, mostly based on pure innuendo and even dishonesty. I have no clue at all what the "Armstrong Cult" ever did to you to instill such a hatred, and such bitterness."

I, on the other hand, am NOT at all amazed at the blissful ignorance in which you and many others live your lives.... I hear from you guys every day...

Does anyone out there want to take the time to tell this guy anything he couldn't already glean from the website?

Editor -- The Painful Truth

--------------------
11/13/05 -- Crazy 'i's

i thought i was the only one, and sometimes i still wonder if growing up in that church was some crazy dream.

i wonder if we ever met at a feast of tabernacles.

cheers,
deborah

I don't know, Deborah. If your name was Rhonda and you were from Texas, I might say yes, but... Oh wait... there was Sandra from St. Pete, and... what was that Tennessee gals's name again....the one with the scar on her left shoulder blade.... Couldn't see it. Felt it in the dark....

Ok....Seriously, though... if you were about my age and in Big Sandy, or Lake of the Ozarks, or St Pete (~1970's) and had a penchant for drinking beer and making out in the campground while the parents were at Services ....hm....

<What was your name again and do we have any kids?>
Just kidding.....:)

--Editor

PS -- What is WITH this little-"i" crap??? Is it some sort of weird fad? My daughter does the same thing to me.... I told her I'd NOT will her my double-wide trailer upon my death if she continued...

This habit of NOT CAPITALIZING a personal pronoun???? "I" is "I".... Use your "I"s.... Capitalize like ya MEAN IT!!!

--------------------

11/12/05 -- Religion I & II, Moon Reflections, and Crying Crotch

I have family still in PCG, and don't wish to bring them dishonor by posting (my name/their names) but feel many of the frustrations shared on this site, so posting is inevitable in order to share. I remember Jekyl Island... mostly the wind, the sandspurs, and sitting in the gravel under a giant tent at my parents feet in their metal folding chairs with my brother. (Looking back now, maybe it should have been called "Jekyl and Hyde" Island... wasn't that around the time Nixon was impeached? I don't know, and was too little to remember much.)

I don't believe in self-whipping and the flagellation of preachers who ponder thoughts of "spanking" the females of their congregations for wearing well tailored skirts that fit the form. (If an erection is considered a sin, then the preacher who is aroused enough to write an article about it in his magazine should be the one to be ashamed.)

If one should be ashamed of their own attractiveness, then how about putting all those basketball heros in long john's out at Ambassador College? After all, we females might get "crying crotch" (the female version of "blue balls") from watching them bounce their balls and strutting the court in their cute little basketball shorts... why ... just thinking about it is making me misty... those damned, wretched, unvirtuous, and UNGODLY AC basketball-player-whores! "SPANK" "SPANK" "SPANK" ... (Is that how it works Gerald?)

... which brings to mind... dare I say it (?) Sadomasochism. There seems to be a lot of this whipping of others and whipping of self and fear of mortality within these doctrines. (It's actually quite sad.)

For those of us who have "grown up" and allowed ourselves the GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to T H I N K ... I leave you with 2 poems that I wrote under psuedonym (and, sorry, but I can't even give you the psuedonym for fear of the church bringing "His" wrath on my family).

------
Religion I & II

A heretic I'll proudly be
A Protestant I'm not
A nonconformist to the things
that I was wrongly taught

There is no one religion
that's better than another
All shove their antics down your throat
and, then, they kill each other

Better to be a silent, nameless,
faceless lightning rod,
than to be a part of greed or hate
all in the name of God

Religions can be beautiful
in humble orchestration;
each like a different instrument
that plays in jubilation

But, when the broken reed of clarinet
has grown too proud,
Or, when the trumpet in the middle's
playing much too loud,

Or, when the saxophone has lost its
rhythm and its soul,
That's when the orchestra has lost its
focus as a whole

------

Angels All Around Us

There are angels all around us
who walk the earth 'alone'

Our friendships form a family
and there's no one to be owned

Take comfort in this freedom
and, regardless of the wrath,

go and soak beneath the petals
floating on your private bath

And, gaze up through the skylight
on some muggy night in June,

to reflect upon the sunshine
that reflects upon the moon

(Anonymous Liberal Intellectual)

Love this:

"And, gaze up through the skylight
on some muggy night in June,

to reflect upon the sunshine
that reflects upon the moon."

Reminds me of hearing GTA at Big Sandy. He told us all of how, as he flew that fancy jet of his, he would occassionally see the moon, perhaps, full -- ahead of him in the sky, and how, it made a big impression on him how that light was "Going around the entire planet to be reflected back at me." Made him feel 'small', I believe was his point....
<Quote Caution: I was a wee lad at the time, and might have the quote-specifics wrong, but the gist is there.>
I like your verse better....

On this: "I can't even give you the psuedonym for fear of the church bringing "His" wrath on my family).

I understand what you're saying, but... I STILL Do Not Like this anonymous-author thing. I'll deal with it, I reckon.
You said... "don't wish to bring them dishonor by posting ..."

Dishonor. Hm.
I understand. I don't like it, but I understand.

I would be remiss if I didn't take special note of .... "After all, we females might get "crying crotch" (the female version of "blue balls") ..."

Well.... Heck. THAT's an image:)

(I'll sleep well tonight....;)

--Editor

--------------------

11/14/05 -- Life Explained!!

<From my Sis, Ann, across the pond in GB>

On the first day, God created the dog and said: "Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. For this, I will give you a life span of twenty years."
The dog said: "That's a long time to be barking. How about only ten years and I'll give you back the other ten?"

So God agreed.

On the second day, God created the monkey and said: "Entertain people, do tricks, and make them laugh. For this, I'll give you a twenty-year life span."
The monkey said: "Monkey tricks for twenty years? That's a pretty long time to perform. How about I give you back ten like the Dog did?"

And God agreed.

On the third day, God created the cow and said: "You must go into the field with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves and give milk to support the farmer's family. For this, I will give you a life span of sixty years."
The cow said: "That's kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty years. How about twenty and I'll give back the other forty?"

And God agreed again.

On the fourth day, God created man and said: "Eat, sleep, play, marry and enjoy your life. For this, I'll give you twenty years."
But man said: "Only twenty years? Could you possibly give me my twenty, the forty the cow gave back, the ten the monkey gave back, and the ten the dog gave back; that makes eighty, okay?"

"Okay," said God, "You asked for it."

So that is why the first twenty years we eat, sleep, play and enjoy ourselves. For the next forty years
we slave in the sun to support our family. For the next ten years we do monkey tricks to entertain the grandchildren. And for the last ten years we sit on the front porch and bark at everyone.

Life has now been explained to you.

Aye.
Thanks, Ann:)

---------------------
11/04/05 -- Dear Bob Matthews

Reply from John B

Hello John

It is certainly a good sign that the Painful Truth is (still) open to ideas which disagree with those of the Editorial Staff, as evidenced by the publication of my email. I didn't really find your editorial "offensive"--just a little surprising, coming from a voice which I heretofore considered rooted in normalcy.

No? Then why did you write the email?

For me the problem isn't so much your love of homosexuality.

Ah, here it comes! I wondered how long it would take some "good Christian" to decide that I am a closet queer. Thank you for not disappointing me.

It is that you and your ideas, as an editor, will be accepted as representative of those who participate in the Painful Truth and the forum.

First of all, I'm not the editor here. But even if I were, what's your point? Any article or editorial in any publication is always submitted for the purpose of airing one's own views, the results of research, or a specific point of view. The editors of a large newspaper may take a particular political point of view, but that does not mean that the guys running the press or the copyboys necessarily have the same view. The same is true at Painful Truth.

It is my opinion that you speak only for yourself, and nobody else. Or, is that untrue?

That is absolutely true, and I have always been clear about that.

However, what I do find to be a "cheap shot" on your part is your use of the term "sic" for the most miniscule of offenses, such as the omission of an apostrophe.

I thought you said it was a cheap shot to use my kids as examples. Is that no longer true?

For example, I neglected to put an apostrophe in the contraction "lets" when it should have been "let's". I know the difference. However, this gave you the opening to apply the term "sic" as a means to make yourself appear superior to me. That, my friend, is a cheap shot. You do it to me and others as well.

If you do much reading, then you know that it's standard practice everywhere.

You owe further explanations to the readership of of the Painful Truth. You said, "What's also clear is that your are still a homophobe. Your letter gets angrier as it goes along". Do you even know what a phobia is?

I believe the general definition is an irrational or overwhelming fear of something. So what exactly do I need to explain to the readership?

Why do you think I am afraid of homosexuals? Perhaps I am merely afraid of the diseases they carry. I am not afraid of them--I am simply disgusted by them. John, what is it that you like about queers? Obviously, there is something you like, or you wouldn't have written the article you did.

To answer your question straight, ignoring the innuendo you are clearly presenting: It occurred to me one day that "queers" are human beings and have no control over their sexual orientation. So why should I hate them for that? I believe the article is quite clear on that.

Do you like the way they suck one another's penis's [sic] --oops! there's an opportunity to use the term "sic" again!

Looks like we're back in the locker room again. Keep talking -- your bigotry becomes more apparent with every keystroke.

Isn't there something weird about a person who's [sic] object of sexual attraction is an asshole??? Or, is this OK by you?

Let's put it this way -- it's none of my business, nor is it yours.

The Painful Truth was never created to be a website for sexual deviates, whether you like it or not. How dare you pervert it? How dare you pervert the creation of Ed?

I'm sure Ed is capable of weighing in on the subject if he finds it offensive. In fact, I'm certain of it.

Fuck you!!!

Did you go to college? Your eloquence is simply staggering.

"You said, 'Sister Boom-Boom? Dykes on Bikes? Never heard of these people. You are clearly better informed than I am on this subject '." Then just admit your ignorance and shut your fucking mouth once and for all.

I forgot to ask…which church do you pastor?

Bob Matthews

P.S. at least I will put my name on my correspondence--what does the "B" stand for in yours?

Boom-boom, of course. What else?

I find it quite interesting that you addressed exactly none of my rebuttal issues. Instead you turned this into a personal attack on me. The big question in my mind is…why? I'm sure we've never met, and I don't recall ever talking to you before (perhaps on the forum, but I don't recall). Exactly what is pushing your buttons? It's got to be something more than just my article. I mean, why should you feel threatened because I don't hate homosexuals? How does my opinion on the subject impact your life?

---------------------

10/28/05 -- Bounty Hunter Paul

When I first came to the site, it looked very interesting. Once I have seen that reference were made to The new Testiment, I lost interest. Because as far as I know The new Testiment were written by Paul who was a bounty hunter and the sun was his god.

Nazeem J

----------------------
10/28/05 -- Do You Hate Queers, Duex

To John B from Bob M

Hello John

It is certainly a good sign that the Painful Truth is (still) open to ideas which disagree with those of the Editorial Staff, as evidenced by the publication of my email. I didn't really find your editorial "offensive"--just a little surprising, coming from a voice which I heretofore considered rooted in normalcy. For me the problem isn't so much your love of homosexuality. It is that you and your ideas, as an editor, will be accepted as representative of those who participate in the Painful Truth and the forum. It is my opinion that you speak only for yourself, and nobody else. Or, is that untrue?

However, what I do find to be a "cheap shot" on your part is your use of the term "sic" for the most miniscule of offenses, such as the omission of an apostrophe. For example, I neglected to put an apostrophe in the contraction "lets" when it should have been "let's". I know the difference. However, this gave you the opening to apply the term "sic" as a means to make yourself appear superior to me. That, my friend, is a cheap shot. You do it to me and others as well.

You owe further explanations to the readership of of the Painful Truth. You said, "What's also clear is that your are still a homophobe. Your letter gets angrier as it goes along". Do you even know what a phobia is? Why do you think I am afraid of homosexuals? Perhaps I am merely afraid of the diseases they carry. I am not afraid of them--I am simply disgusted by them. John, what is it that you like about queers? Obviously, there is something you like, or you wouldn't have written the article you did. Do you like the way they suck one another's penis's--oops! there's an opportunity to use the term "sic" again! Isn't there something weird about a person who's object of sexual attraction is an asshole??? Or, is this OK by you? The Painful Truth was never created to be a website for sexual deviates, whether you like it or not. How dare you pervert it? How dare you pervert the creation of Ed? Fuck you!!!

"You said, 'Sister Boom-Boom? Dykes on Bikes? Never heard of these people. You are clearly better informed than I am on this subject '." Then just admit your ignorance and shut your fucking mouth once and for all.

Bob Matthews

P.S. at least I will put my name on my correspondence--what does the "B" stand for in yours?

Dearest Bob,

You said, "The Painful Truth was never created to be a website for sexual deviates, whether you like it or not. How dare you pervert it? How dare you pervert the creation of Ed? Fuck you!!! "

The Painful Truth WASN'T created to be a website for sexual deviates, and he hasn't "perverted it". How dare YOU for thinking it in that light after all these years of work!

Are you suggesting that just because myself, or JohnB, or someone else, gives some fair thought to the topic of homosexuality, that this website is a den of sexual deviates? I have a couple choice words for you too, Bob.... But I'll let JohnB respond as he sees fit.

From my corner?

A homosexual, like any hetero, is probably 'wired' that way from birth. And IF there is a loving "god" somewhere, responsible for creation and all that, then "he" is probably well aware of this situation.
The Bottom Line here is that folks are either Good Ones or Bad ones, be they homo, hetero, bi, black, white, upside down, blowing bubbles, etc, etc ad nauseum. Get it?

The real question is: which are you, Bob?

PT Editor

----------------------

10/22/05

Mike,

Regarding a possible Montel Williams show on cults: there are many aspects of modern television talk shows which themselves are cult-like. I would really like to see a television documentary on the subject of population control, propaganda, myths, superstitions, sound bites, and all the other assorted aspects of that which lures so many people to spend so much of their lives watching so many different forms of the same inane drivel. Not that Montel Williams' show is inane drivel. But certainly most of what is broadcast in the USA is utterly worthless.

Bill Fairchild

Plainfield, IL

----------------------

10/22/05

Visit David Ben-Ariel's Blog!
http://beyondbabylon.blogspot.com

You MUST be high....

-----------------------

10/22/05

Regarding the article on the unpardonable sin.

Not sure what article you are referencing here....

My brother, who was reared in the church and never did anything to anybody, went insane muttering to himself that he had committed the unpardonable sin.

He simply had been too bastardized to handle life.

The pure evil of this organization led to his collapse. I will never forgive them.

To this day he sits, in a small room, in his mother's house, totally insane.

Michael K

Wow.
That's a little extreme, you ask me.

-------------------

10/18/05

John B's reply to Bob M -- "Do you hate queers?"

Dear Bob M,

Thanks for reading the article. I'm sorry you found it offensive. But I think you clearly missed the entire point of the piece. It was never intended to be an in-depth study of homosexuality. If you read it again, without prejudice, I think you will see that. I'll bet you only read it once, didn't you? And you apparently expected it to be something it was never intended to be.

Now, let's address certain comments you made.

"The first problem I find with the article is that it opens up a can of worms and then refuses further analysis, a situation which I find intolerable. ... You just cannot write an article on this subject and then say you don't want to talk about it."

When did I do that? Read the entire article again, and tell me where I did that. I did not do that. At no time did I say "That's the end of the subject", or "This conversation is over", or "I refuse to discuss it further". I simply did not do that. Where did you get the idea that I did?

If a gay were elected President, would we have a First Lady or a First Fag?

Ouch! Do I detect some personal animosity here? Some anger? Some fear? Perhaps you need to write your own article and explain where this vitriol comes from.

Today we have photos of missing children on milk cartons. Tomorrow will we have pictures of missing gays on vaseline jars?

That might really be funny in a locker room. I'd probably even laugh. But are you sure you want to publicly expose your prejudice like that?

You use your children as the vehicle to establish a reason to love homosexuals, and I find this a cheap shot.

First of all, I'm not "using" my children. Back in the early 90s, when I was thinking on this subject, I wondered what I would do if one of my kids was gay. That's all. How is that a cheap shot?

But, lets [sic] say your son were normal in his sexual orientation, but the neighbor's kid was not. Would the gay kid next door find the same degree of acceptance as you bequeath your own son, or would you simply tolerate him?

Does it matter? The point is that I wouldn't condemn the kid because he's gay. I would treat him like a human being, not some kind of disease.

What if the gay kid next door decided to come over and ask your son to the prom?

That would be my son's decision. If my son wanted to go, I might not like it, might even advise against it because of the prejudice he would face, but unless I thought he was in physical danger, the decision would be his.

Let's say that your son was offended by the unwanted advances of the fag next door, and [sic] what are you gonna do? Now, now, let's remember--no hate crimes allowed.

Again, it would be up to my son to let the other kid know he wasn't interested, just as he has done with certain girls he didn't want to date. If that didn't work, and the next-door kid was a minor, I might speak to his parents and ask them to step in.

Hate crimes? What are you talking about?

On the other hand, let's say your kid was gay as you postulated in your article. And then he becomes a really prominent homosexual in their community and finds himself as the Grand Marshal of the Gay Freedom Day Parade in San Francisco. There he is on TV, cavorting with the likes of Sister Boom Boom and the Dikes on Bikes. C'mon John, would your chest be swollen with pride, or would you be hiding under a rock somewhere just hoping your buddies at work didn't see it?

Man, you are really reaching here. You've strayed miles from the scope of the article. But to answer your question: Yes, I would be embarrassed. But that doesn't change the fact that I love my son.

Sister Boom-Boom? Dykes on Bikes? Never heard of these people. You are clearly better informed than I am on this subject.

The other part of the article I thought was completely bogus was the "Test Yourself" conclusion. In the first place, if 90% of the population was homosexual there wouldn't be a world, and the 10% who were normal would have isolated themselves in remote areas until the homo's [sic] died off. Wouldn't take long. Nine out of ten babies homosexual? No way. Normal men forced to marry homosexuals? C'mon!

Well, by this point I think it's clear that you've lost all objectivity. Have you ever heard of a hypothetical? A scenario to illustrate a point? Is everything literal to you?

I'd rather eat a plate of barbequed dog shit than have a homosexual relationship.

I think that's pretty obvious by now. What's also clear is that you are still a homophobe. Your letter gets angrier as it goes along.

What I would like to see is for John B to write a sequel to this article, where he could analyze the consequences of his liberal ideas.

Thanks for calling me liberal. It will be quite a shock to some of my friends over at the forum who think I'm a radical, right-wing Republican fascist. As for a sequel, why would I want to do that? The article was written with a goal in mind and it met that goal. It said what I wanted to say. If you want a clinical study of the consequences of homosexuality, go find one. There are plenty of them out there. My article was never about that, so don't expect me to conform to your wishes.

I can almost hear Rod Meredith talking about the nest of queers over at the Painful Truth...

Maybe you have heard him say that. But I suggest you hold your breath until the next time I care about what Raw Denny thinks. I'll wake you when I do.

John B

-----------------------

10/18/05

Under death notices you can add Carl McNair who died April 14, 2004.

Signed by happy to be long since an ex-member of a diabolic organization, WWCG.

Marsha G

-----------------------

10/18/05

Whatever possessed you to invest all that effort in http://www.hwarmstrong.com/index.htm ...?

It was worth it. Congratulations. Great resource - I wish I would have had it in the mid-70s.

Dan

Gee, Thanks, Dan! Ed M. started this off. I'm just tending bar here for a while <grin>.
As far as 'what possed him? And me?
Just a real need to speak the truth about religious conmen and the WCG+, their splitoffs, etc. That's about it.
PT Editor

10/17/05 -- Catholics take a stand?

Roman Catholic Church now officially teaches that now all of the Bible is true! Holy shit, Batman!

http://www.time sonli ne.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C13509-1811332%2C00.html

What next? Admission that some of the popes may not have been all that holy? Holy SHIT!

Bill Fairchild

10/3/05 -- Congrats!

Congrats!, you make me puke!

Thought you'd like to know.

bobbykisgay@hotmail.com

Try some ice water; it will settle the heaves in your gut. Then have another drink. --John B

9/19/05
http://www.herbdoc.com/nhpintro.asp

Mike,

Take a look at this webpage and tell me who the writing style reminds you of...

Best,
Heather C

Dang! Lil' Joe got a day job! And he writes just like the Living Impaired Apostle!

Thanks, Heather

9/18/05 -- comments on "Do you hate queers?" article, JohnB

Editor:

I've been trying to decide whether or not to comment on this controversial article for a week now, and since nobody else seems to have, I'll go for it.

I feel there are a couple of things wrong with the article, but first must say that I understand the author's references to the Church because we share the same WCG roots. I also remember reading RCM's article on "Queer Men" from 1961 and agree with John that Rod was completely polarized on the subject. In fact, the entire organization could be characterized as homophobic. I remember GTA speaking about "queers" on the radio program circa 1960.

Having said this I must voice my disagreement with nearly everything else John says in the article. In our rush to disagree with everything the Church ever taught, we must be careful not to overreact and embrace other forums of untruth. That RCM hated homosexuality and taught others to do so is undeniable, however it doesn not automatically follow that he was wrong. To be wrong 100% of the time is perfection, and I think we can all agree that Rod ain't perfect. Even as a stopped clock is right twice a day, Rod too can be right once in awhile, even if it is by accident. Is it possible that Rod was correct in his assessment of homosexuality? Yes, it is.

The first problem I find with the article is that it opens up a can of worms and then refuses further analysis, a situation which I find intolerable. The subject of homosexuality is volatile these days and deserves investigation. Here in California the Democrats are trying to change the language of the law which describes marriage as between a man and a woman, preferring to say it is between two persons. You just cannot write an article on this subject and then say you don't want to talk about it.

The eventual inclusion of homosexuality into mainstream American life will impact our society in unimagined ways. Today they just want to be equals, but we need to ask ourselves where this is leading and what damage will be done to our institutions tomorrow. Will a homosexual wedding end with the minister saying "I now pronounce you man and wife"? How could it? Should he say, "I now pronounce you person and person"? They're already persons. If a gay were elected President, would we have a First Lady or a First Fag? Today we have photos of missing children on milk cartons. Tomorrow will we have pictures of missing gays on vaseline jars?

You use your children as the vehicle to establish a reason to love homosexuals, and I find this a cheap shot. Yeah, it is noble to love your kid no matter what. But, lets say your son were normal in his sexual orientation, but the neighbor's kid was not. Would the gay kid next door find the same degree of acceptance as you bequeath your own son, or would you simply tolerate him? What if the gay kid next door decided to come over and ask your son to the prom? Let's say that your son was offended by the unwanted advances of the fag next door, and what are you gonna do? Now, now, let's remember--no hate crimes allowed.

On the other hand, let's say your kid was gay as you postulated in your article. And then he becomes a really prominent homosexual in their community and finds himself as the Grand Marshal of the Gay Freedom Day Parade in San Francisco. There he is on TV, cavorting with the likes of Sister Boom Boom and the Dikes on Bikes. C'mon John, would your chest be swollen with pride, or would you be hiding under a rock somewhere just hoping your buddies at work didn't see it?

The other part of the article I thought was completely bogus was the "Test Yourself" conclusion. In the first place, if 90% of the population was homosexual there wouldn't be a world, and the 10% who were normal would have isolated themselves in remote areas until the homo's died off. Wouldn't take long. Nine out of ten babies homosexual? No way. Normal men forced to marry homosexuals? C'mon! I'd rather eat a plate of barbequed dog shit than have a homosexual relationship.

What I would like to see is for John B to write a sequel to this article, where he could analyze the consequences of his liberal ideas. I can almost hear Rod Meredith talking about the nest of queers over at the Painful Truth...

Bob M

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/10/05 -- Micah Royal

To whom it may concern:

I wanted to email both Ambassador Watch and The Painful Truth and thank you for letting the public know about John B's article "Do You Hate 'Queers'?" As a recent WCG pastor and a life-long WCG-er, I can say that John B really hit the nail on the head with his words. Even now, in the "kinder, gentler" WCG, alot of lip service is paid to loving gays while hating their behavior without much loving action.

I can still remember one of the first openly gay members who came to me for counseling, just a few years ago, whose questions led me to think, as John B encourages, how would I feel if my religious organization was telling me "You have to become something you are not, become gay, to be a Christian. You can't ever have a woman as a life companion, even though it is your heart's desire. Your love is unnatural and sick," when I knew I had no control over who I fall in love with or the fact I am attracted exclusively to women.

I remember how this man was treated by the church members around him. Even though he was living a celibate life -- a difficult life to live when you have as much love to offer as this man does, and have dreams of having a companion in life, something we in WCG tended to look down on Catholics and others for asking of straight ministers, let alone regular members -- the church membership treated him like a pariah. The senior pastor (at the time I was a pastoral assistant, then an elder & assistant pastor) never really talked to him, obviously avoiding him. He never shook his hand as far as either my wife or I could remember.

So he had to suffer loneliness and exclusion, both because the church said he could not have a loving companion, because most of his neighbors were GLBT people and viewed by the church as a "temptation", and because the church refused to reach out in love to him, even while preaching "love the sinner, hate the behavior". Love that looks so similar to hatred does not deserve the name "love" at all.

Attempting to counsel this man and others like him that God led down my path is a big part of what led me to reconsider the way I treated gay and lesbian people in my ministry, as well as other sexual minorities. It shows alot of courage in the polarized environment in religious and political circles on this issues to see other individuals reaching out to victims of spiritual abuse, encouraging them to reconsider this issue.

The sad thing is that so many who claim to follow the way of Jesus are the greatest proponents of hate against minorities like gays, lesbians, trans-sexuals, and women. Yet when examine the core of Jesus' life and message, it was one of loving acceptance of all God's children, only pouring out harsh rhetoric at the theologians of exclusion. Too many Christians remember Jesus' reputation was tarnished by the company he kept.

Where would Jesus be in the debate of today? Would he be the one judging and condeming gay & lesbian people as "sinners" without getting to really understand them & their unique struggles? Or, would Jesus be reaching out to them, though his reputation be tarnished, to show them love, respect, & support?

I know not all of your writers are people of faith and do not know if John B is, but I believe that, by encouraging this attitude of openess and respect, he is more clearly joining Jesus in His way of loving acceptance of all people than those who are quick to put down others who are different, without getting to know them as fellow brothers & sisters in the family of our great God.

Respectfully,

Grace and Peace through Jesus our Master,
Micah Royal
Pastor of Discipleship, Worship, and Prayer Ministries
Safe Haven Community Church
Colton, CA

www.safehavencommunitychurch.com
http://www.geocities.com/micah_royal/SafeHavenMinistries.html

9/10/05 -- Montel Show

Dear editor,

I recently read on AW a "Mike Minton" (I think that is you, or are you not???) was in talks w/ a 'major network' for some new show possibly. I was just curious if that was still 'on' or if it ever was. I think it might be a good idea, if you're the kind of person for that kind of thing. Anyway was just wondering if maybe you could update, if you dont want to, than I will probably never hear from you, and I guess that I'll just have to check the TV book.

Thanx for the time of day.

-clueless one

Ha!
Yes, that is me.

Hurricane Kristina kinda took away the momentum there for a bit, but I'm still corresponding with them. We have some differences that need to be ironed out on just what a "cult" is... I point to Living or any of the splits, for instance, and they point to the old Heaven's Gate crazies.
Still ongoing, however. I'm trying to keep their focus on the WCG and splitoffs, that's all..
Thanks for the interest, and will update everyone when I know something, yea or nay...
Best
-- PT Editor

9/10/05 -- Why Not?

Please answer one question, when anyone asks God, "why", how do you respond when God replies "why not"?

whats you (sic) HONEST answer buddy?

Steven D

1. My name aint "buddy".
2. "He" hasn't replied. To "anyone". Not you, not your neighbor, not your dog. Noone. Ever. Get over it.

-- PT Editor

9/10/05 -- Thank you

Dear editor,

I hope someone is still the editor at that site, because I just stumbled across it and my head is not spinning quite as fast now so I can appreciate the site properly. I grew up in the cult, but did not accept or realize it was a cult until one day I randomly picked up a book on cults in the library and the first entry was on the WCG and Armstrong. I don't remember how long I was trapped in it, or when my family stopped going, or at least dragging me along, as I've blocked most of it out. My parents belonged to the Bethlehem, PA congregation and while I don't know anything about the suicides of members from there or Wilkes-Barre, it doesn't surprise me. The Bethlehem congregation was what I would consider a particularly hateful group of jackasses. Sabbaths were always, as long as I can remember, the worst day of the week. My parents would turn into monsters and... and... and. Horror stories are a dime a dozen. I've actually come to... forgive isn't the right word, but let go maybe, of my parents role in this. I'm only 20 but I've dragged them through the mud for a long time over the horrific excuse for a childhood they gave me. Of course, I'm still going to be emailing my father the site address, because while he knows the WCG was horrid, he's still cult-prone. The vile thing my parents attend now is completely, utterly unlike the WCG. And a damn ex-pastor from the WCG led them there. I'm not mad at my parents so much (except for their current giant church mistake) but is it so wrong to have violent fantasies of what I'd do if I could only get my hands on that pastor, and former elders and deacons and pastors and etc from the church? I have only in the past year or so been able to fully silence the little voice in the back of my head screeching about "taking the lord's name in vain" and committing other "sins" and being shut out from "the world tomorrow". It's only a few years now that I've started to remember the date Christmas falls on, and been able to guilt-trip my father into the art of pumpkin carving or obtaining chocolate Easter bunnies. Not that I'm boasting, but my parents are one of the lucky ones. Of the other children from the same congregation that I've heard of in recent years, some are now getting in touch with their parents now after having run away years ago (now that they're going to be parents themselves, young and unmarried more often than not), many have had drug addictions or legal issues. Some are getting sucked right back into the cult atmosphere by their parents who they're too mentally damaged to leave. I certainly have some serious issues with churches and Christians and religion in general. I doubt I'll ever be a christian (it's taken me oh so long not to be literally SCARED to say that) or ever even make the effort to overcome my past and attend an actual church service. Frankly, I consider it a healthy fear. Better to avoid that shit than ever be brainwashed again.

Forgive me, it's late and I'm a little dazed on cold medicine, and I could go on and on about how messed up that place was, but I'm so thrilled to have found others who are coming from the very same religious background and don't think complaining (at the very least) about it is "getting carried away" as a former but unrepentant crackpot told me. Thank you for your website.

Allegra R

8/30/05
My name is Kim, and I am a producer at the ³Montel Williams show.² I amworking on a future show about the abuse in religious cults and would love to speak with you about your organization. Please call me when you get a chance at 1-800-987-5446 ext. 333. Sincerely, Kim Forman-Brechka Senior Producer Direct line: 212-830-0333

I've been in touch, there. That's all I can say at the moment....

8/30/05

Dear Editor,

I find your site extremely interesting, and am especially impressed by the sincerity of the contributions.

I am not, myself, a victim or former victim of WCoG, but I have experienced religious close-mindedness, rigidity, and intolerance, and so could empathize with some of what was written. I was raised a Roman Catholic, but have been an atheist since the age of 13 (I am now 45).

I would like to submit the following comments on the article titled "Why I still believe in creation and not in evolution" by Bill Fairchild. (In a separate e-mail, I will also comment upon "The Case for God", by John B.)

The following is are quotes from "Why I still believe...", with my interjections/comments:

1. "I still see no evidence today of any living being reproducing itself into anything other than an almost exact copy of the living being that reproduced itself."

COMMENT: There are hundreds of geneticists and microbiologists who would take issue with that statement. Unless the author of this statement has made an exhaustive study of genetics and also conducted a lot of field research, he is not competent to make such a sweeping assertion.

2. "With almost 7 billion humans alive now, you would think that sooner or later one of them would produce a child that is almost, but not quite, human, that has some advantage over its parents, and this evolved organism will be able to reproduce and pass on to its progeny this new evolved advantageous feature that did not previously exist. Then over enough time enough such advantages will have been spontaneously evolved that we will have a brand new species, perhaps something that looks like a biped but has three arms instead of two, or two heads instead of one, or a brain twice as large."

COMMENT: Human mutations occur every day. They are minute - usually imperceptible - but they can accumulate over many many generations. For example: Over geological periods of time (i.e. hundreds of thousands of years), new species of primates have appeared and others have become extinct. Simple, tool-making Australopithecus appeared approx. 4 million years ago, followed by Homo habilis, fire-using Homo erectus, and finally Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (went extinct approx. 25,000 years ago) and Homo sapiens sapiens (I'm leaving a lot out and simplifying it, too). The fossil record is evidence of this. Among biological species which breed faster - e.g.: bacteria - it is possible to actually observe the development of significant mutations in the genome (e.g.: the development of resistence to antibiotics).

3. "And this adaptation will allow the new species to survive because the environment will be fatal to bipeds with only two arms or only one head."

COMMENT: Straw-Man fallacy / imposition of an unnecessarily harsh condition. The supposition inserted here ("...because the environment will be fatal to bipeds...") is completely unnecessary for the operation of evolutionary mechanisms. Species can co-exist.

4. "Humans still produce only baby humans, black widow spiders still produce only baby black widow spiders, amoebas still divide in two and produce only two new amoebas. No new life forms are being created or evolved that I have heard of. We keep discovering new life forms that have always existed, but we don’t see any new life forms being born of parents that were of a different life form."

COMMENT: Again, many learned scientists would beg to differ. The clause "...that I have heard of" is inappropriate in such a discussion. This amounts to hearsay / anecdotal evidence.

The article "Why I still believe in creation and not in evolution" by Bill Fairchild is very sincerely written, but I believe that its arguments are too flawed (i.e. not rigorous enough) to be useful in this context.

Again, I find your site extremely enlightening, and would like to encourage you to keep up the good work.

Regards,

Alexander F. B.

GERMANY

You know what? I love to hear from people who are thinking. For themselves.

You pull up a chair on this front porch any day....you have one waitin'.

--PT Editor

8/30/05 -- To John B

Dear Editor,

I find your site extremely interesting, and am especially impressed by the sincerity of the contributions.

I would like to submit the following comments on the article titled "The Case for God" by John B . (In a separate e-mail, I will also comment upon "Why I still believe in creation and not in evolution", by Bill Fairchild.)

Most of the evidence which John B presents can be explained by the so-called "Anthropic Principle" / "Observer Bias."

The Earth seems - to us - to be perfectly suited (with regads to temperature, atmosphere, seasons, etc.) to "Life as We Know It" quite simply because it's what we are accustomed to.

The intelligent native of a Jovian-type planet with an atmosphere composed of ammonia and methane would probably express analogous sentiments ("How do you explain," he might muse, "the perfect temperatures of between minus 220 and minus 200 degrees C which our world enjoys? And the ideal atmospheric pressure of 500 tons per square centimeter?" etc. etc.)

Then again, if the conditions weren't - by ANY stretch of the imagination - conducive to the formation of life, then no one would be there to observe that fact. See also the "Many-Universes" Hypothesis.

The article "The Case for God" by John B is a very sincere but somewhat naive piece. I'm sorry that I can't adequately reply to it here. It deserves to be debunked by a real expert.

Again, I find your site extremely enlightening, and would like to encourage you to keep up the good work.

Regards,

Alexander F. B.

Dettenhausen

GERMANY

8/24/05

Ed, they are still reading them (the Gruff Rants you so kindly left on Tripod).
I was talking to a former Deacon with whom my kids grew up and he said all his
kids had or were now reading my personal pages and the Rants (I have a couple
of pages on cults and healing on my old Gruff web-site).

I just wrote to thank you again for leaving those essays up there...as long as they
help just one person (and PISS ANOTHER ONE OFF ),
I'm more than content.

Gruf

8/23/05

I was wondering if you can give me the citation for the "Christianity will be the ruin of America" Jefferson quote.

Thanks!

Marc J. Victor, Esq.

Don't bust my chops, ok?
To answer you're question.... Yes I can. You didn't ask me if I WOULD.
--PT Editor

8/22/05

You certainly may use my letter anyway you please. I was treated very well there and I tried to treat everyone with respect though we were of totally different "worlds" One further little note, I played in he East Texas Symphony and a young lady from Ambassador was our concert master.

Selby B.

8/20/05 -- My opinion of the cult.....

Around 1955-61 I listened virtually every night to Herbert W. Armstrong

and Garner Ted Armstrong's sermons over 50,000 watt giant,

WLAC Radio out of Nashville, while I was living down in Mississippi.

I listened because my mother always listened and as soon as it

was over with I (a kid of 10-14) would then get the radio and listen

to the St. Louis Cardinals on another station.

At no time did my mother ever suggest I listen, and at no time in

my entire life do I ever remember my mother using the words "God",

"Jesus" or "love" directly to me. I later found out that almost all

WCOC members had one thing in common: selfishness. They

all felt they were better than others because they were the only

ones who'd be saved.

My mother permanently warped the personalities of all seven of

her kids, doing it without malice, just following the teachings of

the Armstrongs. I think of both Armstrongs as being evil, but I

think the old man was the worst - the true epitome of EVIL.

Garner Ted would have been just a happy no count fellow basically

harming no one but himself and his family, had it not been for

the power he wielded with the microphone. Sorta like a Bill

Clinton without Hillary.

I'm pleased to have found your site which offers support to those

suffering from Armstrongism withdrawal.......

THOMAS R. B.

8/19/05

Dear Editor of the Painful Truth:

I am "Patti", (Patricia Ann Laessig) author of "Adventures of Herbert W. Armstrong On the Other Side".(and author of "On Angels Wings: A Spiritual Journey) I have updated and finalized this series with new chapters, and created a smaller, uniform type throughout, and have the entire satire in one piece. I would be happy to send this to you to replace the 3-page, larger type edition if your webmaster can place this on the Painful Truth website (using the same tripod connection is fine) in this new format. Please let me know.

Keep up the good work!

Thanks!
Patti

Hmmm. Tell me more "Patti"....

If this comes through distorted, I can snail-mail a CD to you.
Patti

Daaaang, Patti. You have some game, girl! You rock!
htt p://hwarmstrong.com /patti1.htm

PT Editor

8/16/05

Hi Mike

That is very kind of you to offer me to rejoin the forum. It is a better response than I deserve and you are a better man than I. I have done a lot of thinking about my attitude and the fact that I have been a jerk and an asshole (those are my better qualities). I really don't think I am a good fit for the forum because of my personality, and I can see why I rub people the wrong way, and that isn't good. I don't want to cause problems.

I used to think that you were not the right guy to run the Painful Truth, but I have since changed my mind. You have the stones to stand up to any of these christian pricks--your response to the "fuckstick" was a classic (I'm still laughing over that one!).

Anyway, sometime I might like to submit an article to the Painful Truth if that is OK with you. I just have to find the time to put it together.

Best Regards

Bob M

Background -- Bob is one of those guys who wrote a Classic PT Article. Find it here: http://www.hwarmstrong.com/best_feast_ever.htm

He had some disagreements with me, mostly over Forum things, and I've since invited him to come "back home". He has a unique voice and the balls to say it well and loudly, and I always, always admire that.

Hoping to hear more from him.

PT Editor

8/16/05

Dear Mike,

What's happening? I hope you and your crew is well. Just writing to request a favor. I notice my e-mails are still the headliner on your "Letters to the editor" which is fine and I am not asking that you remove them. My request is that you take off my last name on the e-mails that I wrote. I have received a couple of, I guess you would call them, Hate mail letters. I have tasted alittle of your world for you probably get alot of them yourself. Just a request, if not, I guess I'll have to wait until someone sends you something that would knock me off the top of the list, gee I hope it's soon. Well, thats' it, I hope you can honor this request for I trully am not your enemy.

Take care

Marc

I'm not your enemy either, Marc, and no, I won't go back and edit those emails out. If someone emails me, they are giving me permission to post it up and folks need to know they are accountable for their words.
And look -- any "hatemail" you may or not have received?
Trust me when I say that it's a drop in the bucket compared to what I get from the Great Unwashed Religious Nutzoid Idiots out there.

Be a man, stand up and take the wind. It rocks the boat over to one side for just a minute, but then things settle down. Or not.

Either way, our boat is settled down square, as far as I'm concerned.

PT Editor

8/16/05

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gnarlodious"
To: <editor@hwarmstrong.com >
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: I am a survivor...

Hello, I want to thank you for your excellent website. I grew up in the
Armstrong cult from babyhood until I was in my early 20s when I got thrown
out of orbit. All aspects of our family revolved around The Church. It was
horrible.

Anyway, I see Betty Brogaard wrote a page there but left no email address.
I remember them from the Seattle church, and that Fred Brogaard was well
liked among the kids. It was a huge disappointment when he was transferred away,
because he was the only one who ever connected with the kids. This was
probably in the mid '70s. If you could give me her email address I would
appreciate it, if not I understand. If you forward this to her I can
identify myself only as Goldberg...

Is there a mailing list or forum where Armstrongist survivors gather? I'd like to participate.

-- Gnarlodious

Editor at the PT uttered this profundity:

I'm extremely happy you asked:)
I'll forward this on to Betty, in the hope she will email you back... In the
meantime, peruse the PT site, and you will see that we have a very active
forum with many people involved... It's on Delphi.com

Click the links you see on the PT site, follow the roadsigns and if you run
into any problems, let me know. The Forum Host there is Ron, who you should
hear from...

Regards,
Mike Minton
PT Editor

Hi. I think I registered at the forum but there is some
"Forum Code" I need to have to get in. Where would I get such a code?

BTW, this is the hardest forum I have ever registered in. Very confusing.

-- Gnarlodious

It can be a bit confusing. Not as bad as diving off a cliff however. Ron should be in touch with you.

8/15/05

Editor

I saw the topic "Student Death at Pasadena 1960's" as a current discussion on the PT Forum on the main page of the Painful Truth. Since I am not on the forum I cannot reply there. If somebody is looking for information on this subject I could refer them to an email I sent on Page 40 which could possibly answer a question for them.

Respectfully,

Bob M

8/14/05 -- GTA

"Into Bed With Garner Ted Armstrong, THE MOVIE" has been posted to a newsgroup called

alt.binaries.pictures.celebrities# Into Bed with Garner Ted Armstrong - gtasmallcd.mov [01/66]

Please send a copy as the newsgroup is no longer available.

Thanks,

Dr. Michael Waddle

No. I don't "send copies" upon demand, thank you. You can visit http://www.hwarmstrong.com/ ar/InBed.html

and follow the directions here, though: http://www.hwarmstrong.com/garner-ted-armstrong-geraldo.htm

It's simple --

Instructions for download:

1. Please, DO NOT just click and play this raw video link. This increase in bandwidth can make my server unhappy, ok?

2. Instead, RIGHT click on the link below, and select SAVE TARGET AS. Save to your local PC.

3. You must have Real Player or another compatible player to view it. It's still a free basic Player, I believe, and you can find it on www.download.com for example.

Here's the link to Right Click: GTA and Geraldo

Warning: This file is NOT small.

(Note to self -- do NOT let this arrogant asshole "doctor" cut on you....)

-- PT Editor

7/3/05 -- Blowing the Trumpet

Dear Friends,

Recently, Mr. David C. Pack of the Restored Church of God issued a scathing attack against a book entitled A Sabbath Test, as well as its authors, Dennis Fischer and Art Braidic. What he couldn’t possibly imagine was the effect his condemnation would have. Instead of putting this issue to rest, Mr. Pack’s words were so filled with acrimony, they demanded a response—and they got one.
On June 26th Blow the Trumpet published a powerful rebuttal to Mr. Pack’s article and posted it on their website http://blowthetrumpet.org/DavidC.PackvsTheSabbathTest.htm In a matter of days, this rebuttal has been flooded with hundreds of hits from people representing a host of COG organizations. Additionally, scores of comments have been received applauding the straightforward candor presented in this remarkable expose. The most common question being asked by its readers is: When will the church address this issue? Many are even asking if Blow the Trumpet has heard from their particular organization on this.
Regardless of what you or your group thinks on the subject of dining out on the Sabbath, this is a topic that is on the minds of virtually thousands of God’ people around the world—and the interest is growing.
We encourage you to read what just may be the most compelling argument ever written on this topic. There is no doubt that you will learn something you never knew before. With that, we encourage you to TAKE THE TEST.

Respectfully,

Blow the Trumpet

info@blowthetrumpet.org

Um. Yeah. Ok.

6/29/05 -- 60 minutes

Hi there,

i downloaded the 16 minute Mike Wallace interview with Rader with interest. You also mention:

"In an April 16 letter to brethren and coworkers, Herbert complained bitterly that "60 Minutes" had "used only a small portion of that interview on the air - just the portions they felt would make the church of the living God look bad." Then, Herbert claimed, "I do reproduce for you here the beginning of the taped interview, and I have left off when the conversation got into private personalities. Following is the real essence of the television interview between Stanly R. Rader and Mike Wallace...." But what Herbert wrote was not the "real essence" of the interview, but carefully edited excerpts from the first 20 minutes of the three-hour interview. So Herbert was doing the kind of deceitful editing he accused "60 Minutes" of doing.

The full three-hour tape of the interview is a shocking revelation about the inner workings of the WCG. When the Hawaiian WCG members heard a copy of the tape, over 90% quit the church in disgust. We hear that many more members worldwide left the church upon hearing copies of the tape - and remember, the tape being circulated came from Rader's "secret" tape recording, not from CBS."

do you have the 3 hour interview somewhere, able to download? Or a transcript or something?

Thanks,

Will M.

Johannesburg, South Africa (former WCG member and AC grad)

Unfortunately, I do not, Will. I'm looking for it, however.... Wait a minute...I have something on audio CD that someone sent me. I need to look at that again.....

6/29/05 -- I believe I have found my new fellowship

Hey Mike,

I think I have finally found a group of brethren I can relate to. I am resaved and recalled! JUST KIDDING

Click here: The Brick Testament

Dennis Diehl

6/28/05 -- Not deceived

My family came into wwcg in 1969 and I never saw or heard any of things you people are talking about. The door was there to walk thru . No one held you in the church but you. Mr Armstrong taught us prove all things and not believe him believe the bible. We might of detoured off the path for a while but it was still Gods church. It was not the church that was wrong but individual pastors who got caught up with themselves.Christ is the church. Its easy to bash a dead man because he is not here to defend himself. Mr Armstrong never said he built the church He said that Jesus Christ built the church. Lets all of us be lights to this dying world and pray thy kingdom and thy will be done.

John Frampton

6/26/05 -- ENSURE THAT YOU KNOW BEFORE YOU GO

Dear Editor:

I was a member of the WWCG too and would like to fore-warn all people both, from within any church or thinking of attending any church to simply prove out for themselves what they believe, what they read from their own church literature, or what someone tells them - to do their "homework" or they will be prime pickings for any cult.

Many Christians believe what they do ( hold as "truth" ) without being able to prove it. I was the same. Their are many resources for one to prove out what he or she holds as "truth". Cults flourish on ignorance and those, who are naive enough to take things on face value, minus supporting data. 30 years I spent in the WWCG and overall, can say, "there has never been a hodge-podge of a mixture of hypocrisy, power-trippers and religious abuse". Many people now, have been hurt to the point of even, not believing in a "God", understandably.

As the saying goes, "if we fail to learn from the mistakes of the past, we are condemned to commit them again". My heart goes out to the many, who were physically, emotionally, and psychologically abused. Obviously, this was not the mark of where "God" was but simply, a work of tyrants - those who exploited the vulnerabilities of others.

Please don't be angry at God ... be angry at the power-hungry, abusive "no bodies", who they, themselves went to AC to have their appetites whetted at the expense of the lay members and their families. Of course, this doesn't apply to all who went to AC but to a lot of the ministry and deacons / deaconesses... that's for sure. (The Gestapo in Germany during WWII had the same problems with power.) !!!

Ralph Fisher

6/26/05 -- An article or editorial or whatever.

As regular readers of Ambassador Watch may know, I am a second-generation WCG
survivor - born in the church, raised in the church, and an adherent (both
willing and unwilling) to the doctrines and other things they taught until I
finally made the complete break at the age of around 22 or 23. I've never
made a secret of the fact that my life has been a very difficult one (and
there's enough blame to go around for that), but the WCG and its teachings
has a great deal to do with that fact. Of course, to some degree, it's never
been all that much of a mystery as to why, but circumstances have comspired
to expand on that reasoning and make it crystal-clear, and I wanted to share
it.

I think it's fair to say that the WCG tried to generate its own culture within
a culture (I hesitate to use the term subculture because that implies an
integration with "normal" society"). The rules that the WCG enforced were to
a large degree incompatible with the idea of living a normal life within
society. While it can be argued (and that argument is probably very correct)
that this culture was very dangerous and damaging, it was still a culture and
within that culture there was a degree of self-sufficiency and support. In
other words, as long as you toed the line, you could expect help (from other
members, mostly) as you needed it (although of course it came with some
"tsk"ing and judgement). However, the important part about this observation
is not the effects of this culture, but the fact that the culture existed.

This culture had, as one of its foundational characteristics, the teaching
that one was to be "apart" from the world. Aloof, if you will. One was to
rely on the WCG and its insular culture for everything, and the teaching was
made, strongly and forcefully, that the WCG (the organization) was to be the
*only* source of this culture.

This culture could have stood up to, and indeed did stand up to, many
challenges and trials. But there was one trial that this culture could not
stand up to - and that was deliberate suicide. The culture deliberately and
methodically destroyed itself. Now you'll never catch me arguing that this
was not a good thing in the grand scheme of things, because it was. However,
this deliberate suicide was carried out haphazardly and incompetently, to the
point of being evil.

Because while the WCG was busy destroying their culture, the human cost of
this destruction, and the human cost of the culture itself, never crossed
their minds. Whether this is due to selfishness, incompetence, or pure evil
we may never know, but they messed up.

As a consequence, there were thousands of people, much like me, who basically
had a large part of the only security they'd ever known - a security that was
even more fundamental than family (which was not all that secure anyway, at
least in my case) completely uprooted, with no idea how to face the world
other than meaningless platitudes such as "well, let God take care of it" or
"you need to get to know Jesus". Phrases which were, in fact, completely
useless, as they most conveniently absolved the WCG of any responsibility
whatsoever. As the Church Lady on SNL would say... "How Conveeeeeenient".

The WCG completely ignored the human cost of their actions - the actions that
occurred before 1995, and the actions that occurred after it - even up until
now.

When looked at in this light - who can blame the splinters, really? And who
can blame those who joined the splinters from the WCG? Perhaps their
behavior is self-destructive - but by the same token, what else did they
have? The supposedly "converted" WCG certainly didn't give them any better
options.

However, I'm not writing this in order to bash the WCG, although they deserve
it in spades. I'm writing this to connect some dots. After all, I'm
approaching 30, and I still don't feel like I belong in most situations -
like I am not a part of this society - like I am something different that
doesn't quite belong. This, I think, is because the WCG as a society taught
me to feel this way from a very early age. Then it destroyed itself. When
you are taught the meaning of life is only to be found in something that is
then destroyed, what's left?

Nothing, that's what.

This is the legacy of the WCG. May they rot in hell.

--Russell

6/19/05 -- Regarding WCG's magazine for teens

Sir:
On the Painful Truth's website section "Letters to the Editor" 
http://hwarmstrong.com/email_090.htm on 7 June 05 someone named Kristine 
T inquired about a magizine series for kids and teens for the Worldwide Church 
of God. The title of the magazines is "Youth." Don't be fooled by the title 
because it was just as boring as the Plain Truth magazines when I was a child 
with the addition of 'happy,' smiling, pretty, teenagers. I remember a nearby 
public library (of the 'world' of course) stocking these pieces of colored 
toilet paper next to better kids magazines (early 90's). 

This is a most excellent site which places the WCG under critical review. Keep 
up the good work.

-----------------

If you have anything you would like to
submit to this site, or any comments,
email me at:

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
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90

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
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90

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
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90

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
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90