The Practicing Heretic

DCP can KMA & GTH

2011-05-22T07:45:00.003-04:00

If only Harold Camping would have been right, just so Dave C. f---ing Pack would shut the hell up. It would be worth being "left behind" just to enjoy Pack's reaction -- which would probably be complete silence, followed by a good guzzle of kool-aid, and more complete silence...

Instead, these bozos just further fuel Pack's narcissism and the continuance of his own insane, lying bullshit: "Look! There was no rapture! Our article was downloaded umpteen-bazillion times, and our video practically took over the internet! Everybody else is wrong, which proves that I am right! God loves ME -- the one and only True Leader of the one and only True Church on earth today! This proves that I am the end-time Apostle/ Watchman/ Messenger/ Joshua!...But make your check payable to The Restored Church of God..."

Pack Goes Camping

2011-05-20T21:25:00.005-04:00

Why do liars & thieves such as Dave Pack throw stones at other liars & thieves while defending the legacy of their own liar-&-thief idol, Herb W? Dave's excuse for Herb's prophetic errors was to state that the man was never a "prophet," but rather an "apostle." So...since he was "higher ranking" than a prophet, his "mistakes" were somehow insignificant, and he was to be held to a lower standard of accountability? Should he not have been held to a higher standard? Of course he wasn't a prophet, false or otherwise. He was simply a blatant liar. He didn't know, and he knew he didn't know. Why does Pack defend Herb's errors? Especially when he is quick to dismiss others based on the same criteria that show Herb to have been a "false prophet"? Because predictions of the world's imminent demise kept the money machine running then, and keep it running now...

More R&D on D&R

2011-04-10T08:03:00.019-04:00

I have been meaning for some time now to pick up where I left off regarding Armstrong's D&R teaching. But I didn't know where or how to begin. I'm sure that over the last 40 years, the doctrine has been picked to considerable pieces by many with a more scholarly hand than I could ever wave in this direction. I'm not into the breakdown of Greek/Hebrew semantics or an analysis of the historical/cultural setting of a particular scriptural text. What matters to me is practical logic and relevance in the here and now. I'm a simple human being, and the only way I know to do this is to keep it simple.

In his booklet Understanding Divorce and Remarriage, Dave Pack quotes I Corinthians 7:1, which states the following: "Now concerning the things whereof you wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." Pack then writes: "Paul is not saying it is not good for a man to touch a woman. He is merely quoting a letter, saying, 'You wrote that to me!'"

First, if one examines I Corinthians 7 in context from start to finish, it is obvious that Paul (or whoever the author is, claiming to be "Paul") is the one making the statement, and is not merely quoting someone else's statement back to them. (He follows it up with "Nevertheless," which wouldn't make any sense unless he was coming off a point he himself had just made. The punctuation arrangement alone lends more to it being Paul's own words, and not those of someone else. Perhaps other translations render it differently, but it's probably best to simply quote Pack's own KJV.)

Second, there is a big difference in saying, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" vs. "It is not good for a man to touch a woman." The former merely condones (not commands or promotes) abstinence. The latter would seem to paint any and all physical contact (sexual or otherwise) between a man and a woman as tabu. So, Pack is right and wrong at the same time.

Third, Pack's analysis of the verse serves absolutely no purpose in making his case. It doesn't even serve as an adequate set-up for the argument he leads into...

The Two Trees

2011-04-09T10:25:00.003-04:00

Toward the end of his life, HWA loved to recycle his message about "the two trees" -- that all of humanity's problems stemmed from Adam & Eve's misguided choice in the garden. Aside from the whole Grimm tragedy of it, that scenario is rife with problems.

To begin with, at least according to COG theology, A&E were only "two days old" when the snake showed up to spoil their romp in paradise. (How many other Christian denominations include that in their interpretation of the account?) That concept alone creates its own set of problems: (1) What language did they speak? (2) How could they, at two days old, have enough of a grasp of that language to carry on a conversation? (3) How had Adam already "named the animals"? (4) The "serpent" spoke the same language? (5) If questions 1-4 could be logically answered, how is it that neither Adam nor Eve had enough sense to realize that snakes don't talk and to either question their own sanity or run like hell (or both) if one did? -- maybe all snakes at that time were harmless and spoke fluently; (6) Even if question 5 can be dismissed, why would God pass judgment on all of mankind based on any outcome of this scanario? (A related question would be, how do we know that childbirth wasn't going to be painful anyway? Sounds like ancient man resorting to mythology to explain things he couldn't otherwise explain.)

There are other problems with the "two trees" theology. Any parent knows that if you bring a young child into a room full of toys and specifically instruct him NOT to play with one in particular, his natural curiosity will guide him to single that one out for attention. (That brings up other questions regarding the COG teaching on "human nature," which I will get to later...) It really doesn't even matter if Mom or Dad takes the time to pick up every other toy in the room and explain to the child all of the fun he could have playing with each one of them. If they single one out for exception, the child will be more apt to focus on that one, simply because of its apparent uniqueness.

Which brings me to my point: According to the Genesis account, God had more than a few words to say about the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." What does the account say about the "Tree of Life"? It pretty much just mentions, almost as an aside, that it was there too. Maybe it was right next to the other tree. Maybe they were physically identical. Maybe the ToK produced Granny Smith, while the ToL produced Golden Delicious. (Or maybe it was apples & oranges; whatever...) But nothing in the account indicates that God even took the time to spell out to Adam and Eve the potential benefits of eating from the tree of life. (Maybe they wouldn't have understood the concept of living forever? Apparently, they didn't understood the concept of "in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die..." which apparently God didn't either; but he could have at least given them the benefit of a reasonable explanation -- some may argue that he did, but if the account is to be taken at face value, without "adding to" or "taking from," then it must be concluded that he did not.)

It was only after the snake teased Eve and both she and Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit that God even bothered to briefly elaborate on the ToL, around which he then activated an angelic force field to keep them away from it. (And maybe the cherubim took shifts for the next millennium?)

If I had a quarter of a century for every time he was wrong...

2011-01-02T10:35:00.008-05:00

Two weeks from now will mark the 25th anniversary of the death of false prophet Herbert Armstrong. It never ceases to amaze me that people can still cling to his brand of religious dogma when the man was proven to be a blatant liar many times over during his lifetime. Especially considering that they are more than happy to throw stones at others whom they label as "con men" for exactly the same reason. And they are equally quick to discredit such individuals for conduct that they are willing to dismiss in Armstrong's case and the case of the leaders of their own groups.

It is practically impossible to reach such people. I have tried. It's the biggest reason that I haven't posted here for such a long time. I know what I know, and I will never again let Armstrongism (or any other religion) control my life; but if others are willing to be controlled by it, there really is nothing anyone else can do to convince them otherwise. The evidence is quite readily available for those who are willing to ask the hard questions...

R & D on D & R

2010-04-17T09:45:00.012-04:00

One of the biggest reasons that I ultimately decided it was time to leave Armstrongism behind involved the D&R doctrine. The church hadn't had any literature on the subject since 1974 (when I was a mere four years old), so it had been a little difficult to nail down cold, hard facts for almost thirty years. Information may have been available through sermons and in HWA's Member/Co-worker letters, but a booklet on the doctrine hadn't been produced (to my knowledge) by any COG until earlier this century. (Of course, anything produced by any other COG but the one with which I was affiliated would have been considered "dissident literature," and disregarded anyway.)

Once I sat down and actually took the time to study the doctrine from a truly obective viewpoint, I was shocked by what I discovered. At the time, I felt that perhaps I was just reading things wrong (??), and I prayed that God would help me to see what I was missing. Then I read the booklet again, but the problems were still there. Not only that, but they had multiplied. In fact, after each time I prayed and returned to the booklet, something new would appear. Eventually, I came to the point of just asking myself how I had not seen it all before. And I realized that HWA's approach had been the result of one of three things: brilliance or insanity -- or a combination thereof. (As an aside, I know that some would argue that "God" was truly "answering" my prayers by helping me to see an[other] error in Amrstrong theology, but, for reasons too numerous to go into in this post, my conclusion was not that...)

Davidian Theology

2010-04-02T09:41:00.025-04:00

Since my final COG address was Dave Pack's RCG, most of what I write on this blog will address issues that derive from that particular brand of Armstrongism. Of course, just because he claims to be holding the fastest to his hero's legacy doesn't mean that RCG is 100% true to what HWA himself taught. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that DCP was attempting to mirror his idol's ministry from start to finish. (For example, he "allowed" make-up in the early days of RCG, then forbade it and "apologized" for his error of permitting it in the first place, suddenly claiming that HWA's position at the end of his life was anti-makeup. Pack had been in the ministry for 25-plus years and didn't know that?...) However, during my final days in RCG, I discovered points of variance between HWA's doctrines and DCP's copies thereof.

Some of the scriptural differences between DCP and HWA would be quite simple to overlook, unless one were doing a page-by-page comparison of their literature (or by simultaneoulsy listening to their sermons, one in each ear). To some, it may seem like "straining at gnats," but if the man is going to claim the status of "doctrinal purist" and "holding fast Philadelphian," he should double-check his facts. Not only because such errors would cast doubt on his credibility, but because they could also ultimately cause his readers to question the validity of the biblical record he is so adamantly defending.

One example concerns the subject of Christ's resurrection, and it seemed natural to address it at this point. (I was still in RCG when I compared notes and found this discrepancy. I wasn't one of those "critics" looking for "loose bricks" -- a subject I will address in the future.)

As an aside, it is interesting to note that, after doing some of the necessary and painstaking scriptural hopscotch to support his "three-days-and-three-nights-means-exactly-72 hours" theory, Pack writes (emphasis mine): "The following fact should be clear. The exact moment and time of day when Christ was placed in the tomb had to coincide with the exact time of day of His Resurrection. We must establish precisely when Christ was placed in the tomb. We will then know precisely when He left the tomb. Plainly, any time of day or night—morning, noon, afternoon, evening, midnight, etc.—that Christ would have entered the tomb would have to be the very same time He would depart it by His resurrection!

"...We have already established the time of day of His death and the burial soon thereafter and, therefore, also the time of His resurrection. It was late afternoon, between 3 and 6 p.m."

The problem should be obvious. How do an "exact moment and time of day" and "precisely when" translate into something as vague, indeterminate and non-commital as "between" such-and-such a time? Why go through the exercise of "doing the math" if the best answer that one can give in his final argument is an approximation? "Proving" what something "has to be" doesn't prove what it IS; acceptance of one's own foregone conclusion doesn't make it truth. As I've mentioned before, the COGs' slogan is "Prove all things, but just take our word for everything else..."

Now that I've gotten my brief (but not-so-digressive) digression out of the way, I will address the true subject of this post, the matter of a particular encounter following Christ's resurrection. Or, maybe I'll wait until later...

Jonah slept -- or -- How many leprechauns could dance in Paul Bunyan's pocket?

2010-04-01T06:18:00.025-04:00

Picking up where we left off: Jonah bums a boat ride and takes a nap below deck. God sends "the perfect storm" to flush him out. The superstitious crew draw straws to figure out who's to blame. Jonah loses the lottery, gets thrown overboard, and pulls a Geppetto (or is he Pinnochio?)

Okay, I fast-forwarded a little bit. So Jonah gets gulped down by this specially-made sea creature (fish, whale, or maybe Leviathan itself), and 72 hours later gets burped up on the beach, probably a little pruny and rather putrid-smelling for the experience. And now he can't wait to run to Nineveh and give the heathens holy hell. Long story short, the Ninevites repent, and disaster is averted. (Those OT types loved to hang out hungry in their sackcloth and ashes...)

Fast-forward again, and we have Jesus satisfying the Pharisees' demand for proof of his Messiahship by comparing his imminent death and resurrection to Jonah's three-day stay at the Humpback Hilton.

Armstrongist hardliners insist on the historical veracity of Jonah's experience, since Jesus cited that alone to put his own legitimacy on the line. They are adamant that it absolutely had to have happened, that it cannot in any way be interpreted as myth, fable, folklore or any other literary fabrication. They argue that if it weren't true, then the entire case for Christ's role as the savior of mankind collapses.

But why? They defend other biblical writers' usage of literary gimmicks to make their points, and they even employ similar gimmicks themselves. And they do it routinely. One of the most glaring examples of this (which resulted in this posting) is found in Dave Pack's book I will send ELIJAH to restore all things. There, he writes, "Remember, Brer’ Rabbit denied that he wanted to be thrown into the briar patch." Of course, context is everything, but nowhere in the book does Pack attempt to convince the reader that the tale of Brer' Rabbit is based on true historical fact. In fact, that is his only reference to it.

The point is, Pack doesn't have to state, "Everybody knows that the tale of Brer' Rabbit is a fable; I am merely using it to make a point." He doesn't expect his readers to believe the fable or to think that he himself believes it. And he doesn't expect that they will dismiss the rest of his book because of it. He is simply referring to a commonly-known story with an equally well-known moral. And yet, he won't allow for the possibility that Jesus himself would think to do the same when put on the spot by his detractors...

Jonah -- the one who didn't get away

2010-03-28T10:01:00.012-04:00

Since we're already on the subject of fish, it seems only natural to write about Jonah, the OT prophet who followed Amos and Obadiah into mayhem. (The pun is always mightier than the sword...) The book of Jonah raises some questions, and I'm not going to let him off the hook until they have been resolved to my satisfaction...

For starters, what if Jonah had simply accepted his assignment, without argument? What if he hadn't tried to run from God? What if he had just said, "Yes sir" and headed straight to Nineveh? This would have been problematic, to say the least. Jonah had lessons to learn, and many others would ultimately have lessons to teach from this biblical tale.

This brings me to my second question: Was Jonah swallowed by a "fish" or a "whale"? The only reason I even mention this is due to it being a point of contention among believers. To me, it would seem that if you get swallowed by a giant sea creature and live to tell the tale, the only people to whom that particular detail is going to matter are the skeptics. (And it was not so long ago that I was not among their rank.) But some religionists (at least those who interpret the account as literal fact) tend to make a big deal out of that.

That brings me to question number three: IF the account were no more than a fable, would that diminish its relevance in Christian theology? HWA adherents argue that it has to be a true story, since Jesus himself pointed to it as the ONLY sign of his Messiahship...

P & S, Pt. 2; The 3 R's, Pt. 3: "That's one small step forward, and two giant steps backward..."

2010-03-27T08:15:00.028-04:00

Now that I've opened a tin of sardines (which, of course, is better than opening a can of worms), I'll sit down with that and a box of saltines and see if I can experience my own 21st century version of "loaves and fishes." (Or not -- mass quantities of leftovers wouldn't be such a great idea...)

Anyway, the idea of "three resurrections" became somewhat questionable to me when, during a time of illness of a longtime COG evangelist, RCG's commander-in-chief commented that he believed that particular individual would be in the "First Resurrection." Aside from the rhetoric's similarity to the Protestant homiletic practice of not preaching anybody into "Hell," it struck me as problematic for several reasons.

NUMBER ONE: The individual was not, nor had ever been, a member of RCG (although he had come close to "repentance").

NUMBER TWO: As a non-RCG affiliate, he was obviously not "holding fast."

NUMBER THREE: He had been on the church's payroll for the greater part of his adult life. He may have briefly (as an AC student) experienced life in the church as a mere laymember, but that particular period of "trials and testing" was well behind him, and he had been enjoying ministerial perks for several decades.

When considering those factors, I took the statement as a personal "slap in the face." I thought to myself (as others, no doubt, did as well), "What is the point of holding fast and sacrificing for the 'one and only true church' if a man can secure a spot in R1 by merit of simply being a long-time, big-name evangelist? What, is he 'grandfathered in'?" (The irony -- if it can be called "irony" -- of that particular declaration is that, upon the death of another longtime COG evangelist, this same RCG bigwig declared that individual "unconverted," so as to avoid preaching him into "the lake of fire." I remember thinking, "How convenient...")

From there, the dominoes started to fall, one after another. I began to view "Laodicea" (and the entire concept of "church eras") in a whole new light. A series of "What if's" lined up in my head:

What if a "Laodicean" church leader dies before the Great Tribulation? Is he guaranteed a position in R1 because of his leadership status in "God's Church"? If so, what is the point of being "Philadelphian" (or even trying)? If he isn't guaranteed any such position, was he cheated out of his "crown" by dying too soon and not being given the "opportunity" of suffering martyrdom to prove his worth?

What about "Laodicean" laymembers who pass away prior to the GT? What will their status be in the afterlife? Will they be given the same consideration as the ministerial hirelings? And, again, what about all of the "Philadelphian" laymembers? What is their incentive for holding fast, if Laodicean "ministers" and/or laymembers can spend their lives swatting flies and get an R1 pass simply because they died too early?

Ultimately, what is the point of paying three tithes, avoiding make-up (for women), making sure you have sideburns (for men), shunning "worldly holidays" (and dealing with all of the associated stigma of that particular abstinence), avoiding the "abomination" of interracial marriage (which is also particularly pointless and ridiculous considering that the idea of universal "racial purity" is already impossible and that in the end, there "will be neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free," etc., anyway...), and worrying about grossly irrelevant questions such as whether Jesus died on a stake or a cross, whether Jonah was swallowed by a fish or a whale, whether Pentecost should be on Sunday or Monday, whether baptism should be by sprinkling or immersion, whether God is a "Trinity" or a "Family," etc? Not to mention the absurdity of mandating an individual's hair length and ranking "Spokesman's Club" as "essential for salvation." I could go on and on; and I will, but not today...

P & S, Pt. 2; The 3 R's, Pt. 2: What's in a Name?

2010-03-27T07:09:00.020-04:00

Time flies when you're having fun. (And when you're not, it grabs a bumper.) It's hard for me to believe that it has been over a decade since the GCG/LCG split. I was a GCG member at the time, and followed Meredith (who compared his mutinous GCG board to Korah and his band of Levitical rebels) into LCG. Of course, the Merry band didn't yet have a name, much less an acronym.

I recall Sabbath conversations about the naming process at HQ, when the new-old regime had narrowed it down to a few contenders -- among those being, of course, "The Living Church of God." (I don't now remember any others, or if there even were any others mentioned to us lowly laymembers.) When I heard the new moniker, I couldn't help but think of Revelation 3:1: "I know your works, that you have a name that you live, and are dead." I mentioned this to one of our deacons, who probably thought that I was just being Sarcastic...anyway, the name stuck and, as the saying goes, the rest is history...

Philaodiceans and Sardines

2010-03-26T20:11:00.014-04:00

According to the theology of various Armstrongist extremists, there will be two kinds of "True Christians" on earth at the time of Christ's return: "Philadelphians" (the only kind) and "Laodiceans" (the other kind). Of course, ask any devout follower of Armstrongism which category he or she falls into, and the answer will almost certainly be the former (unless, of course, they are extreme masochists who tend to be boastful of their high pain-tolerance threshold).

Some of the COGs teach that there will also be another one and only kind of TC's extant in the "end-time," those labeled as "Sardis" in the book of Revelation, who somehow, even though they aren't "holding fast" like the Philadelphians (and thus won't be protected in the "Place of Safety"), will not share the fate awaiting the poor, wretched, miserable, blind and naked Laodiceans -- whom Christ is going to spew out of his mouth because they "are neither hot nor cold."

Now, even though there is not one single coglette in existence that is a 100% Armstrong purist (just as there probably isn't any other religious denomination on earth that is 100% true to the original teachings of its founder), each and every one of them tenaciously clings to the fantasy that there will be a private room at the Petra Hilton awaiting them at the beginning of the end. All they have to do is "hold fast."

To digress for just a moment, one of the many questions that popped into my head during the final stretch of my cultic entanglement regarded those who died in other COGs (i.e., not "Philadelphian," thus automatically "Laodicean") before the "Great Tribulation" and "Christ's Return": Which resurrection were they going to be in -- the first, second or third? Obviously, they weren't going to be in the "First Resurrection" (because they hadn't "held fast"); just as obviously, they weren't going to rise in the "Second Resurrection" (because that was for all those who had never known "the truth" and had never been "converted" -- thus never had an "opportunity for salvation"). That only left one last and final revival: the dreaded "Third Resurrection" -- the fate reserved for the most wicked and abominable of us all.

Of course, I had long ago accepted this insane idea, but now I began to ponder its subtle ramifications...

The highway to heaven was full of potholes, so we put on our hardhats, put up some roadblocks and broke out the silly putty...

2010-03-22T10:35:00.005-04:00

In their attempts to force the Bible not to contradict itself, the Armstrongist torchbearers concoct some pretty fanciful arguments to explain the inexplicable. One case in point is Matthew 3:17, which is set immediately following Jesus' baptism.

After pleading his unworthiness to even tie Jesus' shoes, John the Baptist reluctantly dunked Jesus (sprinkling just wouldn't do), and as the newly-begotten-again-born-again (or just wet) Bethlehemite emerged from the water, all those in attendance suddenly heard a voice from the clouds saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

The COGsters dance around the contradictory biblical claims that no human being has ever seen God (I John 4:12) or so much as even heard his voice (John 5:37), by asserting that there was an angel "filling in" for Christ (who had previously done all the talking for God) during the 33½ years that he was restricted to flesh-and-blood status.

An angel filling in for Christ??? So, God was so concerned with keeping up the Wizard of Oz façade that he couldn't even speak up and give his own son an "attaboy"? He had to have an angel do it for him?

Just what was the devil thinking anyway?

2010-03-21T06:57:00.017-04:00

In Matthew chapter 4, we find the account of Satan tempting Christ in order to thwart his earthly mission and to ensure the continuation of his own reign. Aside from the fact that there were no witnesses to the whole episode (another behind-the-scenes Job Search), there are several problems with this particular passage.

First and foremost is the concept of Christ as the "second Adam," ultimately succeeding where Adam had failed. That scenario alone presents many problems. For starters, Adam was a mere flesh-and-blood human being, having been fashioned from the dust not even 48 hours prior to Satan showing up on the scene; Christ was the "Son of God," and had the advantage of having been around for an eternity prior to his life as a human being. Adam did not have the "Holy Spirit" in him backing him up; Christ was born with it, and had received an additional portion of it upon baptism. In addition to all of that privileged background, Christ had just fasted for 40 days prior to this very confrontation, an exercise resulting in simultaneous physical weakness/spritual strength. Adam didn't even have 40 hours to prepare, much less 40 days. And he was tempted by a naked woman bearing fruit. In short, he didn't stand a chance.

So Adam fails in the garden and, about 4,000 years later, Jesus moves the fight to the mountain, where Satan tempts him with a bit more than just an apple and a smile. Aside from the idea that this setting somehow afforded a view of all kingdoms of the world, other problems surface rather readily in this narrative.

Satan presents Jesus with a series of challenges, prefacing each dare ("temptation") with an ever-so-subtly-sarcastic, "If you be the son of God..." Since Satan knew that Jesus had just fasted for 40 days, he first tried to play on his physical hunger: "...command that these stones be made bread" (vs. 3). But if Jesus had really been the son of God, where would have been the temptation in that? Why couldn't he just as easily have willed himself to be "unhungered"? And why did the devil suggest "bread"? Why not brisket or lamb chops?...If it were to be a battle of wits and scripture, Satan had to be kicking himself when he realized that he had set himself up for Jesus' immediate response ("Man shall not live by bread alone..."). For a being who started out as the morning star who was the pinnacle of wisdom, he wasn't demonstrating too much brightness.

And the devil's arguments don't improve. He proceeds to "tempt" Jesus with suicide: "Then the devil takes him up into the holy city, and sets him on a pinnacle of the temple and said to him, If you be the Son of God, cast yourself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning you: and in their hands they shall bear you up, lest at any time you dash your foot against a stone." Here, the devil was really showing his "stupid Satan" side. Neither he nor Jesus was under any delusion as to each other's identity and power. And yet Satan seeks to appeal to some sort of natural human inclination toward self-destruction. And somehow he didn't see another scriptural counter-attack coming: "It is written again, You shall not tempt the Lord your God." I can just see the devil smacking himself on the forehead right then, doing his best Homer Simpson: "Doh!"

Exasperated, Satan poses one final temptation, presenting Jesus with the opportunity of universal rulership if he will only bow down and kiss his ring. As we all know, Jesus wasn't buying it. He then sends the devil packing. Once again, good prevails over evil, and the world can sleep a little easier knowing that they will only have to wait a mere 2,000 years for everything to be set right. Except that the whole "happy ending" breathes of the same fabrication as the rest of the plot.

At any point during the whole confrontation, Jesus could have silenced the devil with five little words: "Get thee behind me, Satan!" Case closed. The devil hits the road with his tail tucked firmly between his legs, and crawls back to the abyss from whence he came. So where was his real power? And where was any real temptation? Why couldn't he have kept on going, wearing down Christ's resolve? If all that it took to shut the devil up were five little words, whom did the devil think he was kidding? And how was he going to save face with all of his demon underlings and maintain control of his fiery realm? (It's not like he could keep the whole thing hush-hush. After all, not even David, that guy after god's own heart, could keep his adulterous and murderous exploits a secret forever, with all of those pesky scribes snooping around taking copious notes...)

MRI on MRE

2010-03-20T15:32:00.015-04:00

To take just a brief detour from my current thread, I thought I'd write about something that demonstrates the absolutely ridiculous nature of Armstrongism. Here I was minding my own business today, when all of the sudden out of nowhere came this memory of a "Sabbath" service from about seven years ago. It was either the first or last holy day of the "Days of Unleavened Bread" (DUB) or the regular Saturday sabbath therein.

During the "sermonette," the visiting deacon mentioned that a son of his who was a non-churchgoer and was serving in the military had given him a "war souvenir" -- a USDA-approved "MRE." (He had received this from his son some time prior to the DUB, and was keeping it as part of his son's military service memorabilia.) Anyway, as the "Spring Holy Days" approached, he began to be concerned about the specific contents of the package, worrying that there could possibly be "leavening" involved.

Not wanting to even unwittingly harbor any leavening, he decided it best to open the MRE and make sure it was "safe." Alas, it was loaded with "sin," and had to be discarded (or promptly consumed) before the NTBMR.

I recall thinking, even then, that that was taking things to a Pharisaical extreme. Would God have considered it a "sin" to leave the package unopened and its exact contents unknown? Would he have struck their household with a curse in the same way he cursed all of Israel for the sin of Achan? Would he have demanded that they be stoned like the man who gathered firewood on the Sabbath? Would he have struck the family dead as he did Ananias and Sapphira?

During the "announcements" portion of the service, the grand poobah -- who hadn't yet promoted himself to the rank of "AWMJ" (really a euphemism for "YHWH") -- chuckled about it, essentially giving the deacon a pat on the back for his uncompromising zeal.

That is just one example of such incidents that raised red flags for me. A small thing, perhaps, but to me it is a prime illustration of the control that the ministry exerts over the laymembers, in even the most mundane aspects of their lives -- one of the reasons that I will never again affiliate myself with a church organization, even if I could ever reassess my views on god.

He wasn't there again today...

2010-03-18T20:45:00.001-04:00

Cited as one of the "proofs" of HWA's propheteering alter ego, Isaiah 57:1 states, "The righteous perishes, and no man lays it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come."

Aside from the fact that this verse does absolutely nothing whatsoever to validate Armstrong as Elijah, the argument itself is counter-productive when one considers the advanced age at which he died and the number of years that have since passed. The argument might have carried some weight had Armstrong died well before his allotted "threescore and ten," and if there had been a sudden acceleration in "end-time" events shortly thereafter. It can't logically or realistically be argued that he was "taken away from" anything, at least not in the scenarios crafted by his promoters. Especially when the attempt to further build the case is made with the following declaration: "Mr. Armstrong, active as Elijah, absolutely had to pass from the scene well before the Tribulation for the seventh and final era to be able to rise." (I will send ELIJAH to restore all things, David C. Pack, emphasis mine.)

It is impossible for HWA to have been "taken away from" events for which his death itself was a prerequisite. The only way that he could have been considered "taken away from" something is if that something would have taken place anyway, had he remained alive...

The man who wasn't there

2010-03-17T20:30:00.000-04:00

We in the world of ex-cogs all know the story of Herbert the Tishbite -- the man on whose shoulders God himself lay the burden of "restoring all things," "turning the hearts of the children to the fathers" (and vice-versa), "crying aloud and sparing not," and "preparing a people for the Lord." We are all too familiar with the autobiographical volumes detailing Herbert's humble beginnings, his glory days as an "ad man," and all of his glorious adventures as he climbed the ladder of success, only to have the rungs ripped right out from under him. And how all of this culminated in his "calling" to do the "Work of God." And we all know that the specific timing of all of this was according to supernatural and divine planning -- multiple millennia of it, no less. In fact, he got whacked over the head with a Bible just in time to spare planet earth and all of its wayward inhabitants from utter destruction...

Just to avoid any ambiguity here, I have to admit that I have a few problems with that scenario...

NUMBER ONE: Here we have God, the supreme creator and ruler of the universe, issuing a bit of a dire threat, which essentially boils down to this: "If I don't send Elijah to restore all things, I will have no choice but to smite the earth with a curse" -- and the cogmeisters are quick to clarify the term "curse" as meaning "utter destruction."

NUMBER TWO: HWA comes along a few millennia later, loses his shirt at the outset of the Great Depression, suddenly finds religion and concludes that God has a job for him to do because he looked around and, lo and behold, nobody else was stepping up to the plate to do it.

NUMBER THREE: Fifty-two years later, HWA "finishes his Work," and dies, being "taken from the evil to come." Now, aside from the fact that he was "in his 94th year" at the time of his death (well beyond the standard "threescore and ten"), and aside from the fact that his passing is now almost 25 years in the rearview mirror, and aside from the fact that he simply "had to die" in order for the rest of end-time prophecy to play out as planned (or was it "put on hold" in order for "God's Church" to completely fall apart? I get confused over that...) -- aside from all of that -- the biggest problem with that scenario is that the world is still standing, the earth is still spinning on its axis and continuing its regularly scheduled circuit in its regularly scheduled position in the solar system.

I guess that my point in all of this is that, given all of the data, the ONLY conclusion that one could possibly draw is that HWA had to have been, unmistakably and beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, the prophesied "Elijah to come." Otherwise, the fan would have been fervently flung upon with flagrant and ferocious fecal matter. In other words, 66 percent of the 20th century would never have happened, and we definitely wouldn't be looking back on it after ten percent of the 21st.

No. That's not really. My point. But I'm tired now, so I'll get to it later...

Uz is a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there...

2010-03-16T20:50:00.000-04:00

There were so many events that I looked forward to in my cult days. One of my most sobering realizations upon leaving was the fact that I had spent my entire life looking forward to "the end of the world." And the fact that there were so many other non-events that had kept me in a state of virtual hypnosis -- the "biggest" of all being directly tied to the "Elijah prophecy." In the COG offshoots, it is touted as the third greatest prophecy in the Bible, with only Christ's first and second comings surpassing it in importance...

"One fine day in the middle of the night..."

2010-03-12T19:11:00.000-05:00

I know I should probably give Job a break. After all, over the course of a couple of days, he sustained a huge loss in the business sector, got woefully bubble-wrapped from head to toe, and all of his kids took a cyclone ride that would make Dorothy and Toto green with envy. Not even sackcloth, ashes and a potsherd could make it better.

It's not that I can't empathize with the man. It is the telling of the tale that troubles me. (I don't now recall whether this was one of my scriptural concerns before I was given the pink slip, but it definitely contributed to the burning of the bridge.)

The initial exchange between god and the devil (with its own Grimm tone) is repeated practically verbatim after the devil's first strike on Job's assets. Of course, at ground zero just a few verses earlier, we have four messengers arriving one after the other to deliver Job some very bad news. This is the point at which the account took on a tone of contrivance for me. (There may be arguments as to why it makes perfect sense for god and the devil to engage in the same scripted dialogue. It may have been a matter of "diplomatic celestial protocol." Or simply some random formula that the writer wished to incorporate in his envisioning of the scheme of things in the heavenly realm.)

Perhaps out of breath and in somewhat of a state of shock, the messengers recount to Job what they have just witnessed, each closing with the same nine words: "...and I only am escaped alone to tell you." It took almost 35 years for the oddity--rather, the absurdity--of that to register in my head. Here we have four separate catastrophes striking Job's empire on the same day, witnessed by four different individuals, each one the sole survivor of the tragedy he had escaped. But apparently, they had time to huddle and make sure that they got their stories straight before showing up in the designated order to break it to Job.

Nowhere in the book of Job is its author identified. Some theories point to Moses, while others suggest Job himself. Yet others postulate that it was penned by one of his three buddies. Of course, since the Bible is supposedly a work of divine inspiration, the matter of who actually put quill to parchment is a rather secondary concern. For a god whose words are "purified seven times," he seems to allow an awful lot to be lost in translation. (But that is another subject for another fine day...)

Job Search continued

2010-03-12T15:57:00.000-05:00

In the WCG offshoots, the Bible is touted as literal, accurate historical truth from cover to cover. Everything from forbidden fruit to talking plants and animals to Nazarite superheroes for whom kryptonite was only a barbershop away. Even if all of those elements could be validated as mere metaphorical tools for leading one to "the moral of the story" -- which is not the case in any of the Armstrongist factions -- it still raises the question of why an omniscient, omnipotent god needs to utilize fairy tales to make his point. At this stage of my life, if any god wants to get my attention, he/she/it is going to have to speak to me live and in person and in plain English. Ancient Greek/Hebrew psychobabble isn't going to cut it. (There are a lot of blanks there that I will fill in at a later date...)

The book of Job itself doesn't tell us much about the man, aside from painting him as a wealthy and accomplished individual. He is married and has several children, but his wife remains nameless ("Mrs. Job"?) throughout the book. His [first set of] children don't exist beyond the first chapter of the book, being wiped out during a birthday celebration. To make matters worse, his net worth takes a nosedive in the same day. All of this because of a little wager between god and the devil -- which brings me to my first and foremost problem with the book itself: Who was present during this exchange in order to later jot it all down for the benefit of the rest of us? If "no man has ascended to heaven" (and, supposedly, no man had at that point...), how do we know that it actually took place, not to mention who said what to whom? And who was the busy stenographer during the remaining 40 chapters of the book?

To be fair, not all biblical adherents are literalist extremists. Not all biblical scholars insist that every element of scripture has to be factual and historical in order for it to have relevance in everyday life. But that, as I stated earlier, is most definitely not the case in the Armstrongist camps.

I have other issues with the book of Job, which I will address in future posts. To those who have been following my blog, it may seem that the subjects that I have addressed so far are mundane and unmeriting of my current stance against all things religious. My response to that is simply to state that some people find God/faith/religion in the wake of life-changing events. Others lose it. It all depends on which side of the coin you are on when it flips and where the coin lands. I am oversimplifying it, I know. That isn't even the whole story for me. But this story isn't about me, it's about Job. And he's not clocking out yet...

Job Search

2010-03-11T06:54:00.000-05:00

There were so many questions that I just never got the chance to ask while I was still a tithe-paying member of "God's One True Church." Hell, I barely asked one, and the (non)answer I received was "Some things you just don't question!" Nevermind that pesky apostle Paul who said, "Prove ALL things..." We were just supposed to sheepishly believe everything the ministry said, and everything else we were just supposed to take on faith (because we know that Paul really meant, "Prove SOME things, and just accept everything else")...

The funny thing is that a lot of the questions didn't even come to mind until I found myself on the outside looking in. (And I had plenty of questions prior to that point...) Another one that I did actually dare to voice while I was still a member (and employee) regarded the church's position on the acting profession. (This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this post; it just hit me...) Anyway, HWA had taught that "acting" was wrong for a host of reasons. He even went so far as to villify the simple childhood rite of "make believe." It was wrong for kids to pretend to be someone or something that they were not. Because (among other reasons) "make-believe" is a lie, and lying is a sin...blah, blah, blah...

This question came to me sometime in 2004/2005, when I was reading through a piece of the church's literature and came across a quote from HWA (cited from his "childrearing" book) declaring his biblically-based bias against acting. And it struck me -- right there at the Headquarters of God's One and Only True Work on Earth -- the most profound and important question that I could ever ask (well, the second-most): What the hell was Big Beak? (Most of you probably remember the Big Bird wannabe who was always in search of those elusive "Young Ambassadors" -- that merry band of human Snuffaluffagi...) What was Big Beak, if not a living, breathing, walking, talking specimen of feather-dusting make-believe?

When I pointed out to the then not-quite-yet-watchman/apostle/messenger/joshua what I considered to be an obvious discrepancy in "doctrinal precision," and suggested that it might be a good idea to revisit that particular issue, his response was to simply shrug it off. After all, to him it was a matter of "straining at gnats"; but heresy is in the eye of the beholder, and since neither of mine was any bigger than my stomach, that was one camel I wasn't prepared to swallow...

But I have digressed a little bit from my subject...which, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with my employment status. (If, as they say, the pun is truly the lowest form of humor, then I suppose that I am truly a lowlife...) I was thinking about the biblical Job, the longsuffering architect of the Great Pyramid, and what the book bearing his name really boiled down to...

Halloween vs. Passover

2010-03-07T08:43:00.000-05:00

Since I'm already on the subject of bad apples, it seems only natural to move on to bad apples and razor blades. In the WCG, we were always taught that "worldly holidays" were all of some sort of pagan origin, rooted in traditions and rituals that were barbaric, sadistic, hedonistic, etc. Therefore, modern representations of such, however civilized, innocent and harmless they seemed, were evil and wrong nonetheless. (Young children sitting on Santa's lap hearkens back to Molech and child sacrifice, Valentine's Day evolved from pagan sexual rituals, etc.) Having never really extensively researched the actual history of such holidays, I don't claim to know the fact from the fiction, the truth from the mythology. At this point in my life, I frankly couldn't care less. For my 35 years in the cult, the only worldly holidays I ever celebrated were Thanksgiving Day and Independence Day, with of course more emphasis on Thanksgiving than Independence.

Halloween was wrong because it was simply and obviously so "satanic." Children dressing up as ghouls, goblins and witches and parading around after dark to extort candy from their neighbors. (We would always have the last laugh on those little heathens, though, by slipping them something healthy and hand-picked from our garden -- unless we simply turned off our lights and pretended we weren't home; needless to say, the trick-or-treating troupes to our door tapered off over the years, so "always" wasn't so long...)

It wasn't until leaving the cult that I actually considered the obvious absurdity (and hypocrisy) of the "God's Holy Days vs. Pagan Holidays" campaign, particularly when comparing Passover to Halloween. The only substantial difference between the two (other than the costumes and dental illness associated with the latter) is the time of year in which each is kept, Halloween being a Fall holiday and Passover being "commemorated" in the Spring. But the essential elements of Halloween are also in place in the Passover tradition: Spirits going from door to door threatening unpleasant consequences for non-conformity. When I was a kid, that could have translated into something as horrific and traumatizing as having your house egged or your trees papered. In the book of Exodus, the "death angel" merely killed the firstborn child of each family that didn't have an "X [un]marks the spot" in lamb's blood on their doorpost. Nothing barbaric or sadistic in that, right? (I suppose the death angel could have gotten carried away and inadvertently killed an Israelite firstborn without the red X to deter him...)

Of course, that is the Old Testament and there is none of that in the New Testament...

Speaking of bad apples...

2010-02-28T09:39:00.001-05:00

Not to digress too far from this thread (the book of Genesis is replete with issues), but the whole "Original Sin"/"Fall of Man" concept raised another issue for me back when I first began questioning things, and it seems to naturally fit here.

One of the things that HWA loved to harp on was the matter of dealing with dissenters. In the WCG, that was defined as anyone who couldn't keep silent about a difference of opinion/interpretation regarding any aspect of church dogma. (If a YOU parent had a disagreement with a basketball coach, it was virtual treason. But that would be digressing too far...) HWA's favorite adage in this regard was, "A bad apple rots the whole bushel!" Basically, "a bad apple" was someone who dared to think for himself. If a minister were to get wind of any such independent thinking in his congregation, he was to immediately "address" it. This usually meant disfellowshipment or, at the least, suspension, of the offender.

There is a lot I would like to write regarding this subject, but for the purpose of this post I want to limit it to HWA's take on Lucifer's rebellion. According to HWA, the archangel Lucifer had been around for perhaps millennia (or millennia of millenia) before he even began to entertain treasonous thoughts. He was one of only three "archangels," beings whose wisdom, power and perfection were second only to God himself. And Lucifer was the supreme archangel, the most perfect of the three. He was in charge of one-third of the millions (or perhaps billions) of the rest of the angelic host. He had unlimited access to God's throne in the third heaven. He knew what God knew. And God, as we know, knew everything.

So, to get to my point, here we have Lucifer beginning to see himself as higher and mightier than he really is and seeing the need for a regime change. Revolution is in order and he needs to know how many of his underlings will follow him into battle. As luck would have it, all one-third of them pledge their loyalty to Lucifer and thus ensues a great war in heaven. Ultimately, Lucifer (now "Satan") and his army (now "demons") get trounced, court-martialed and expelled. Good conquers evil, and life in heaven goes back to business as usual.

But what is wrong with this picture? According to HWA's formula for dealing with dissent, Lucifer should have been disciplined when he breathed the first whisper of a hint of rebellion. And when one factors in God's omniscience, it shouldn't have even advanced to the whisper stage. Much less to millions of angels for perhaps millions of years. If the "free will" argument can be proposed, then why did it ultimately involve one-third of the angels? Exactly one-third? No more? No less? Only those under Lucifer's immediate command? Why did the all-knowing God allow it to go that far? Was it a test of angelic loyalty? If so, what was/is to prevent it from happening again? Do the remaining angels no longer have free will? If they do, then they never have since disagreed, nor ever will disagree, with one single solitary thing that God says or does? If not, then God has chosen to surround himself with millions of "yes men"? If God knew from the outset what was going to happen when he created the angels, then what was his point? If he didn't know, was mankind simply "Plan B"? Or maybe he did know, and mankind was still "Plan B"...

Picking up the bad apple where I left off...

2010-02-26T20:30:00.000-05:00

Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, the worm in the apple and all that. When I dared to open my mouth and question the whole "two-day-old" idea, the first (and most ridiculous) thing I was told was, "It just makes sense..."

Now, aside from the idea that a talking snake makes any kind of sense to any normal, sane, sensible, rational adult alive today, let's entertain the notion that it made perfect sense to the First Lady of Creation. Since there is nothing in the Genesis account to suggest that Eve (or Adam, for that matter) was the slightest bit taken aback by a (Hebrew?)-speaking reptile, one has to wonder how much sense "God" had endowed the First Couple with in the first place. And yet, the fate of all mankind forever after hung in the balance. God forced Adam and Eve, at merely two days old, into a battle of wits against the devil, a being who had been around for who knows how many millennia at that point, and then, when they lost in the first round, he evicted them from the garden, denied them any access whatsoever to the "tree of life," and cursed the human species from thenceforth.

To say that the fight was fixed would be the ultimate understatement. To say that the punishment didn't fit the crime would at least be in the top ten. To question why god didn't just scrap the human project at that point and start from scratch (or just forget the whole thing) would be a good place to begin. (After all, he did decide to drown all but eight not even a millennium later...)

The devil was a cold-blooded low-life from the start

2010-02-20T15:18:00.000-05:00

Since this blog is an attempt to explain my own fall from grace, it seems only fitting to start at the beginning. Of all the questions and issues with which I had been struggling at the time (late 2004), the one that seemed the most natural (and neutral) doctrinal security breach (and the least likely to get me immediately fired and disfellowshipped) involved Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. The WCG had always taught that A&E were a mere two days old when "the serpent" whispered to Eve from the orchard and convinced her that the apple wasn't so bad after all. And of course, Eve then ran to Adam with that luscious specimen of golden delicious, and he did what any red-blooded, heterosexual male would do if he were being offered a piece of fruit by a luscious specimen of blonde-haired, blue-eyed delicious.

It would seem apparent that the deck was stacked very much not in A&E's favor. Now, I have no idea how long the honeymooning couple had actually been basking in the luxurious paradise of Eden before the snake showed up to spoil everything. One can read from Genesis to Revelation and never find a shred of evidence to support the church's teaching that they were two days old. But let's suppose that such proof actually exists. Let's suppose that A&E had been in the blue lagoon of utopia for no more than 48 hours.

Somehow, within that timeframe, Adam had already named all the animals (and come to the conclusion that they were all way too four-legged and furry, etc.), then stretched out in the sandbox and had an Evendectomy. All of this supposedly took place before sunset on Friday -- "the sixth day" -- Adam himself not having come on the scene until sometime that very day. Then, supposedly, on the next day (the "Sabbath"), God addressed the nudist colony of two, making known his rules and regulations. Since it was only the two of them, this code of conduct didn't need to include a dress code. (But for some reason, he found it necessary to include a "Thou shalt not commit adultery" stipulation...)

Why did it take so long?

2010-02-14T07:54:00.000-05:00

Since my departure from the cult (Worldwide Church of God), and from religion entirely, I have asked myself many times, "Why did it take me 35 years to figure it out?" I suppose that the number one answer is quite simply that I was born into it and my worldview was tainted pretty much from day one. I'd like to believe that, had I been a thinking adult in 1975 (instead of a 5-year-old kid), I would have put 2 and 2 together then and run like hell. (The WCG had published a booklet entitled "1975 in Prophecy," in which they promoted 1975 as humanity's expiration date and the time of Christ's return.) Of course, their date for TEOTWAWKI had already been set and reset multiple times by then, and when 1975 came and went without incident, their answer was to blame the laymembers: "Christ was ready to return, but the Church wasn't ready!" Or they simply denied that they had ever set dates. Somehow, that was enough to calm the masses and allay the concerns of most, even though they had time-stamped the end of all things in various other high-profile publications (U.S. and Britain in Prophecy, The Wonderful World Tomorrow - What it Will Be Like, etc.). They had also set forth other pretty ludicrous and far-fetched claims, such as positions to be held by various "servants of God" according to their biblically-alluded qualifications. (They removed the incriminating dates from later editions of their books, but, for those willing to research deeply enough, the evidence is available.)

Of course, too many laymembers are all too content to simply dismiss such issues, believing that "If there are problems at headquarters, God will sort them out." However, they are quick to discredit other denominations, even those that are also factions of WCG (or Armstrongism), for similar indiscretions (including matters of personal conduct involving the ministerial hierarchy).

So, what took me so long? The date-setting was one of the issues that got the wheels turning, but that was even late in the game. Abuse of power and blatant apathy on the part of the ministry were also red flags, but even those were signals that I dismissed for the most part. The bottom line is that until I discovered issues that affected me personally, I was able to rationalize everything else.

Disbelief -- Intention, Accident or Curse?

2010-02-13T12:43:00.000-05:00

Losing faith was not something I had ever set out to do. It wasn't an active decision on my part to suddenly and permanently discard the belief structure to which I had adhered my entire life (35 years at that time). I had simply found myself questioning things that didn't make sense when I took the time and effort to look beneath the surface. And when I dared to voice those questions, not only were they dismissed, but I was subjected to corrective actions for even raising them. The "answer" I was given was simply, "Some things you just don't question." That doesn't exactly square with the biblical imperative to "Prove all things," especially when the ministry is adamant that "'All' means ALL!" The truth of the matter is that if one dares to question anything of earthly pertinence, anything that potentially has bearing on one's life in the here and now, then that individual is labeled as "out of line," "having a bad attitude," or even "satanic." The average laymember's only rights are to "pay and pray." However, the ministry hides that truth behind clever, righteous-sounding rhetoric, in the following argument:

"Don't believe me, believe the Bible!"

"If you find me being untrue to the Word of God, reject me as God's Apostle!"

These first two imperatives sound sincere enough, and would seem to serve their intended purpose, without additional support. But the clincher is this one, all-encompassing declaration:

"Truth only comes into the Church through apostles!" In other words, no matter what a particular verse or passage may seem to say, the "apostle" has the final word, and his answer is "Take my word for it!" This completely contradicts the above directives, and has the net effect of placing anyone who may interpret things differently in the camp of "dissenter, heretic, blasphemer, infidel." The ministry's slogan is that the church "cannot grow beyond proven truth," which, again, would seem sincere enough, were it not for the fact that various aspects of that "proven truth" were deemed changeable and grow-beyondable, by the very "apostle" who wielded power over his church with his own interpretations and opinions of the "unchangeable" word of god. The particular doctrinal issues that ultimately made the case for me were "Divorce and Remarriage," "Pentecost," and "Make-up." There were plenty of other issues that contributed to my ultimate departure from church, but those were the major areas. In future posts, I will go into greater detail.