Friday, June 30, 2006

Advice for the Painful Truth crisis



I have heard that there current Painful Truth website is down and there is a lot of hot heads giving out their heated exhange on who's responsible. There is going to be an archived version of the Painful Truth which is good. Basically this crisis is based on a leadership and direction issue. They need a person who geniunely has some time to spare, a very no-nonsense attitude and who governs with an iron hand and who can shift the Painful Truth toward a more pluralistic direction meaning that not only the atheist, agnostic or deist view is presented but other theistic views presented whether Christian, Jewish or even New Age but they all have very little patience for fundamentalism, Bible hyper-literalism,cultism, mind control and mental manipulation of human beings. The Painful Truth has NOT outlived its usefulness. There are many stories that need to be told about the destructive wicked religion of Armstrongism. The Painful Truth is the forum for that kind of discussion. It will be interesting to hear stories of those who were in the Phildelphia Church of God and other hardline ultra-fundamentalist splinters . The best years are ahead for the Painful Truth and all can make it happen if everyone as Gavin urged to be calm and collective and a thorough detailed plan must be established for the succeess of the website.

Death of a splinter leader




Robert Elliott, leader of the God's Church Worldwide, recently succumbed to his cancer illness. I am not sure of the time nor date of his passing but at this time I give my sympathies to his widow Micki and his daughters, Shawna and Tanya. Rob Elliott was my associate pastor in Toronto when I was boy from 11 to 14 (during the years from 1981 to 1984) during my stay in the Worldwide Church of God. Mr.Elliott was known as a bit of a hard-liner and "rough around the edges" but I had managed to be cordial with him. He held the major tenents of Armstrongism apparently to the end. He was displeasured with the WCG's move to orthodoxy in the early 1990's and equally (if not more) displeasured with the church's imposition of New Covenant Theology which eventually led him to start his own group based in Florida. His own story is at his website at http://www.gcww.org/pastors_profile.htm . My wish for the remaining members of his group that they will re-read scripture and discover the liberating gospel of grace which promotes the freedom in Christ, not freedom away from Christ and to know the precise difference.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

One of WCG's good guys takes a bride!



It's official...Gary Moore, National Director of the WCG in Canada and his girl Wendy are an item. They married on June 10th in Peoria, South Africa.

One friend joked, "In Jay Leno "Headlines" style, it was the MOORE-HOLIDAY wedding, and we can assume that on their honeymoon, Gary was literally ON HOLIDAY in more ways than one... LOL."

I wish them all success and happiness in their marriage. Blessings to them both.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Where I stand theologically




I have done this before at QuizFarm.com before and published it on Gary Scott's XCG. I am glad that I am the same boy as I was when I published it on Gary's blog. I wish I scored lower on the fundamentalist scale but the 18% will do. It's low enough.

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern.
You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern
79%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
75%
Neo orthodox
64%
Reformed Evangelical
64%
Charismatic/Pentecostal
46%
Classical Liberal
29%
Modern Liberal
25%
Fundamentalist
18%
Roman Catholic
18%

Smart article



It is time for Christianity to depart from its Greco-Roman stoic roots when it comes to the concept of pleasure. It is not there to lead people astray. It is there to be fully enjoyed properly. Dr. Michael Hurd writes this brief article, In Defense of Pleasure, to give some brilliant perspective on this topic. You can read it online at http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4701 .

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

More on the Aust factor...




As Chuck Colson used to say, "If you grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."
One person by the name of Papyrus2006 who participates on Mark Tabladillo's Jesus Loves Fellowship, probably did that. Regarding Jerold Aust's lame attempt of a "joke" on his website, here's the action what papyrus took:

You will see that the offensive piece is now removed.
I sent him a brief email asking that he remove it and suggested he post an apology. I tried to do this with kindness and genleness, and spared him the diatribe I posted here.
So, it is gone now, and while there is no apology on the site I have received one in my email. The apology, however, is qualified by two statements. He is sorry for the offense, but also states (1) the piece came from the internet and (2) he has Chinese friends who were not offended.
Not quite the graciousness I hoped for, but there you have it...
Nice work Papyrus! Now if someone can get that Aussie minister to apologize about black women calling them bubble butts and all...well I guess you can't win 'em all. I let the Judge of All handle that comment.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Woohoo recommends a book


Painful Truth participant Wooho recommends a particular book to help them deal with one's cult experience.

Great New Cult Book -- REQUIRED READING!
Okay, not really, but finally the cult experts are writing about people who were born and raised in cults and the unique problems that they have with exiting.
It is called "Take Back Your Life: Recovering From Cults and Abusive Relationships," and it is by Janja Lalich and Madeleine Tobias, the same people that brought you "Captive Hearts, Captive Minds." Both books are excellent; I just finished Take Back today, and I have to say that I am more fired up than ever about helping people get out of Armstrongism once and for all.
Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0972002154/sr=8-5/qid=1150250799/ref=pd_bbs_5/002-0657403-2081626?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Happy Reading! If you need a shoulder while you read, a tissue, or someone to vent to, I am here.

Great article that must be read



This article from InternetMonk.com is a masterpiece of the ages and must read which includes re-reading repeatedly. The article is called "Why They Hate Us" tells us the reason why evangelical Christians are passionately disliked and the reasons are pretty rational and understandable. Also, the wounds are self-inflicted by evangelicals. It is time for evangelicals to take owenership of their own flaws and deal with them. If not, they do a severe disservice to the gospel message. Plain and simple. Read online at http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/H/hateus.html .

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Something for XCGers to think about...





If your group believes in a place of safety in Petra Jordan and if you are "lucky" going there for the next 3 1/2 years of your life. This is where you will end up, everyday of your stay there.


This is where your minister and even head honcho leader of your group will stay, while you rough it out in the dessert.


As Arsenio Hall would say, these are things that makes you go say "hhhmmm!!!" Probably it's time to stop the insanity by singing "Hit the Road, Jack!" OR "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover". Then LEAVE that group and if enough people leave, this wicked scenerio will NOT happen. As the late Rodney Lain would say, "Free you mind and your butt will follow."

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

The Diehl collection is here!



Yes you have heard it right! A collection of former WCG pastor Dennis Diehl's articles on religion and spirituality are online at http://ezinearticles.com/?expert_bio=Dennis_Diehl . The former XCG contributor has good articles showing his lack of patience of cultism, fundamentalism and empowering your mind. I don't agree with everything he writes but he makes a lot of good points. I met him personally in 1989 at the Feast of Tabernacles in Niagara Falls, New York and have chatted with him briefly over the e-mail. Easy going and very funny guy. Enjoy his website!

Sunday, June 11, 2006

This is all too true about fundamentalists vs. science

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Wahoo raises a little hell: Dennis Leap and his view on feminism



VS.

My conscience has dictated to me that one of the greatest works from Woohoo must go on this site. Not all feminists are feminazis and one should NOT confuse the two. Dennis Leap thinks otherwise but Wohoo again puts in him in his place!


Time once again for Woohoo versus Flurry. Here’s an article from the Philadelphia Trumpet with my comments in red. It's long; I'm warning ya!
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2218 as accessed on June 1, 2006
How Feminism Harms Families
By Dennis Leap
June/July 2006

Feminism is under fire. Feminist philosophy has reigned—the queen unchallenged—since the end of the early 1980s. But in recent years, biologists, educators, law enforcement officials and thinking women have begun objecting to and rejecting some long-held feminist doctrines. The throne’s foundation has cracks! Many of the radical feminist’s sacred truths are now recognized for what they are: myths and lies.
Biologists, law enforcement officials, educators AND thinking women! That is just too funny, Dennis. This automatically assumes that a “thinking” woman would never be a biologist, a police officer, or an educator. I can’t imagine what myths and lies I am about to read. Your alarmist tone certainly has me salivating.Although there exists some strong opposition against the feminist fortress, we should not expect the feminist movement to topple any time soon. But is there truth in the criticism? Has the feminist movement, so proudly praised for servicing women, done a disservice to the family?
Let me guess. You’re going to say ‘yes,’ aren’t you?
Women’s Suffrage to NOW
Feminists claim the women’s suffrage movement as the beginning of modern feminism.
They would claim that because it is historically accurate. Some people have this thing about accuracy and truth.
The suffrage movement originated in the during the 19th century. Some famous early suffragists were Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucy Stone. Originally, women’s suffrage sought to give women equal political rights with men—the right to vote in elections and referendums; the right to hold political office. We must remember that these political rights had only been given to the majority of the male population as a result of the democratic revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Correction: the majority of the white male population as a result of the democratic revolutions.
The women’s suffrage movement claimed its victory shortly after World War i with the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution on Aug. 18, 1920, guaranteeing women the right to vote in state and federal elections.
Funny how you have usurped not only the Constitutional right of your female members to vote, but also your male congregants as well.
In the 1960s, the women’s liberation movement was organized and became active. Betty Friedan is credited as one of the founders of modern feminism. Her 1963 book The Feminine Mystique challenged the traditional idea that women could find fulfillment only as wives and mothers. She taught that the idealization of the role of wife and mother was the product of a well-organized conspiracy by males to prevent women from competing with men.
Tell me, Dennis. Do you ever have ministerial meetings to talk about how to silence your women and keep them as wives and mothers? I am not a Friedan proponent per se, but I think some of her ideas needed to be said. I also think that a good dose of feminism might just liberate your women. Ohhhhh…so THAT’S what you are doing with this article. I see. Keep them women down; they’re thinking too much again. Get them vacuum cleaners humming!In 1966, Friedan founded the National Organization for Women (now) to fight for equal rights for women, and served as its president until 1970. At that time, the women’s movement sought to liberate women from the tedious humdrum of babies, bottles, diapers, cleaning and cooking. Women’s movement leaders sought freedom from their “prison” at home. The key to freedom was equal opportunity with men, which meant equal jobs and equal pay.
Dennis, I am assuming you are married. Ask the wife if the routine of babies, bottles, diapers, cleaning and cooking is a bit on the humdrum side. She might even tell you! Sometimes it feels like a prison. I wonder if you ever give your wife a night to herself…to write, to paint (not your house), to relax. Or does she have time to do that with all of the fetching your slippers and the keeping you supplied with beer?Then, the women’s movement aligned itself with the civil rights movement. A clear message was being sent: Blacks had to fight white racism; enslaved women had to fight male sexism. Women everywhere had to be made aware of their oppression and oppressors. The women’s movement borrowed heavily from the attention-getting strategies of the civil rights movement.
It’s too bad that those Jim Crow laws aren’t still on the books, right, Dennis? All of those attention-seeking Negroes just made too much of a fuss and had to be quieted down.
It skillfully employed rallies, demonstrations and marches to trumpet the women’s cause. Besides politicians and media, the struggle targeted young, impressionable college-aged women. What began as a tiny rumble soon roared into major discontent. Many angry, frustrated women joined the cause. The energy released by the women’s liberation movement was enormous. Old traditions came tumbling down.
Maybe the energy needed to be released. Maybe egalitarianism was the goal. Maybe some of those old traditions of women being stifled creatively and bored silly needed to go!
Now we have four decades of feminist history to look at. What do we see?
Well, I could tell you what I see, but I’ll bet you’d feel more comfortable telling me what I’d see. See away, Dennis, see away!
More than any other social movement in our time, feminism has changed the warp and weave of our society. Feminist philosophy has made major inroads into politics, the work place, the military, education, medical research and the building block of society—the family. Very few have questioned the changes. Many who balk at some feminist notions heartily embrace others.Wisdom tells us not all change is good. Not all change is growth. Some bitter fruits are now being harvested from feminism in all areas it has infiltrated, in the personal lives of many women, and especially in the family. Who will take the blame?
Why women, of course! For decades, feminists have condemned men for everything. Supposedly, our patriarchal society is the root cause of everything wrong. Of course, some men should be condemned for their mistreatment of women.
Okay, how about you start condemning in your congregation? If you are old school Armstrong, then you are probably harboring women who are being beaten and not given grocery money to be able to pay your salary. Go after those men. Of course!
But what has feminism brought us? Is life really better for women? Are families better off? Is society stronger?Attack on MotherhoodThe fact that so many women identified with the liberation movement shows that there were real problems within the American home. The movement greatly publicized the dissatisfaction and desperation of housewives. Many American wives were indeed unhappy. But what was the cause of all the unhappiness?
Let me guess…they weren’t wifing and mothering God’s way?Leaders of the women’s liberation movement theorized that the real cause of women’s sorrow was the role of wife and mother. Many asked, shouldn’t we women find fulfillment in a career like a man? Supposedly, those who wanted to hold a career had been made to feel guilty about it by oppressive males.
More coffee, Mr. Leap? I’ll take those pencils and sharpen them again so they’re EXTRA sharp!
Many women began to feel their real potential was being denied them. The proposed solution was that women seek real fulfillment outside of the home—without guilt.Women fought hard for the right to choose a career outside the home. Yet labor statistics at that time show that a large number of women had already entered the work force. Could the cause of unhappiness have been wrongly identified? Was a wrong solution given? Caught up in the movement, few seemed to ask these all-important questions in the ’60s and ’70s.Today, many women have come to understand that feminism really did not offer a choice in the ’60s. In fact, it demanded that women could only find fulfillment through a career outside the home. Though it has taken several decades for it to be recognized, in reality, feminism has led a vicious attack on motherhood—one of two major underpinnings of strong families.
This is so evangelical of you, Dennis. I can hardly stand hearing you like this. No feminist that I know of ever demanded that women find fulfillment by any particular means. The movement was about freedom to be a mom, freedom to marry or not to marry, freedom to say no or yes to sex, freedom to work and pursue dreams. Doesn’t sound like a vicious attack on motherhood to me – this sounds healthy. And it also sounds like you are plagiarizing Jim Dobson. I don't think he'd appreciate it.The ’60s woman complained that she was made to feel guilty for not desiring to stay home. Isn’t it ironic today that a woman who desires to stay home to be a wife and mother is made to feel guilty? In an interview on abc’s Good Morning America, prominent feminist Linda Hirshman said, “I am saying an educated, competent adult’s place is in the office” (February 23). Feminist Rebecca Traister admits that, somewhere along the line, the feminist movement declared stay-at-home mothers uneducated and incompetent: “[W]hen you lose your paycheck and lose your title, somehow you lose respect. And … that should not be the case” (Salon.com, Dec. 6, 2005).
Read the article as opposed to the one that you quoted it from. Society is the group that made women feel bad about their choice to stay home…not feminists. And Linda Hirshman was responding to the fundamentalist position that a woman’s place is in the home!Young women are made to feel that education should be directed toward career advancement only and not toward teaching and training their own young children. Stable families with educated, stay-at-home mothers would solve a large number of our current social troubles. We must learn to defend and praise the women who stay at home. Motherhood is noble and fulfilling, real work!
Noble, yes. Fulfilling, some days yes, some days no. Real work? Always. Of course, I doubt you’d know anything about that. You were probably always on the ministerial trail, having important meetings and indoctrinating new members. Your wife was probably the one doing all of the real work around your place.
Mothers as Non-Persons
Today, a stay-at-home mother is viewed as a kind of second-class woman. In fact, feminists do not even view stay-at-home mothers as persons. This derogatory view began with Betty Friedan. “[V]acuuming the living room floor—with or without makeup—is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any woman’s full capacity. Down through the ages man has known that he was set apart from other animals by his mind’s power to have an idea, a vision, and shape the future to it. … [W]hen he discovers and creates and shapes a future different from his past, he is a man, a human being” (The Feminine Mystique).
This is true. It is a household chore that can be done by either sex. This isn’t derogatory; it is a statement of fact. If a man were told that he had to stay home and make sure the rug was vacuumed, he’d go insane. Which is precisely the point Friedan made in her book. (I'll bet that 'with or without makeup' really burned you up, didn't it?)
The basic idea of feminism was that women should have a choice to go to the workplace and become less animal-like. What does that make a stay-at-home mother? Since being a wife and mother was supposedly glorified in the 1950s, the women’s movement fought to demote that role to the lowest level possible. Many impressionable young women wholeheartedly believed this 1960s philosophy.
I can’t believe that you have extrapolated such garbage from this. Really. This is not about demoting a person; this is about equal opportunity for women! Personally, one of those impressionable young women who believed this was my mother. Unfortunately, she was sucked into your organization and had these ideas squelched within her. Luckily, she is on the road to getting her true self back. And her old ideas about women are emerging again.
Unfortunately, this feminist teaching has planted deep roots in the consciousness of American women. The feminist tree has blossomed. Today, it is considered a great shame to be a wife and mother only. In fact, being a wife and mother is synonymous with the meaningless life of a lower, uneducated class of people. What are today’s fruits of this philosophy?
In whose eyes? I am a writer, and I also stay at home as a wife and a mother. I don’t get paid for my writing…well, at least not yet. I have people saying how great it is that I get to be at home all of the time.
See, I get to be at home because my husband makes a great salary. Before we got married, I made more than he did. He gave me the gift of being able to stay at home and pursue my writing career. I finished a degree. We adopted three children. There is no shame in this at all. There is no shame in women making whatever choice THEY want to make, not a choice that is foisted upon them by the likes of people like you. Had I insisted upon working, my husband would have been fine with that prospect as well. He is okay with freedom, and he is man enough not to be intimidated by it.
Lower, uneducated class? I know moms with college degrees who homeschool their children and who are pillars of our community. Women look up to them not because of their paycheck, but because they are self-actualized women who are satisfied with what they do. None of them are treated like second-class citizens. This all-inclusive language of yours is so black-white thinking. Proceed.
Families in Crisis
The fight for women’s rights has actually turned into a fight against the family. Even the mothers of modern feminism admit that radical feminists have worked hard to repudiate the family.
See – there IS dialogue within the feminist movement about this very issue.Feminist Stephanie Coontz, history professor at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wa., wrote in the Washington Post, “We cannot afford to construct our social policies, our advice to our own children and even our own emotional expectations around the illusion that all commitments, sexual activities and caregiving will take place in a traditional marriage” (May 1). You don’t have to read between the lines to understand that such thinking is destroying the traditional family!It is within the Anglo-American world that feminism has been embraced the most passionately. These countries also have the highest divorce rates in the world, and are producing record numbers of fatherless children—which in turn creates many other social problems.

Those countries without feminism are almost utopian, right? Most on the African continent, most of Asian society, and let's not forget those great social innovators in the Middle East? Maybe you felt a kindred spirit with the Taliban, Dennis.

Robert Sheaffer writes, “One can try to argue that the U.S. family died of natural causes at precisely the same time feminists began shooting at it, but after examining the depth and ferocity of the feminist attack against women’s roles as wives and mothers, such an argument fails to convince” (Feminism, the Noble Lie). Let’s own up to it: Feminism has caused some tragic results for the family.
Are you talking about radical feminism, where all marriage and all men are bad and evil, or are you talking about equality among the sexes and freedom? Funny thing is, this plays well in . Most people are not okay with radical feminism where men are just sperm donors, where lesbians rule the planet, where people worship goddesses. I have a feeling that your conclusions, however, are NOT going to do well in flyover country, unless there is someone out there who needs the Plain Truth.If we are going to fix our social problems, we must recognize that feminism has led our Western families into serious crises. Here is how it happened. Although many young women answered the call to pursue a career, they could not deny their natural desire for a husband and children. Many then opted to have a husband, children and a career. Realizing that certain feminine desires could not be denied, a new movement slogan was quickly pushed into public view—“having it all.” This slogan lives on. But it ignores a hard reality for many working mothers: Having it all also means handling it all. Working career mothers were forced into a high-stress rat race. Having it all was supposed to be fulfilling, but it was not. Now, almost four decades later, women find they are not any closer to finding true, satisfying fulfillment. For some, “having it all” has meant losing it all.
I swear you’ve plagiarized this from James Dobson. Or Dr. Laura. I’m doing a Lexus-Nexus search.
The truth is, working mothers suffer. The children of working mothers always suffer. And should we forget—the husband suffers too.
Ah, yes, here it comes.
Severe fatigue plagues many working mothers. Balancing career, marriage and child care is an impossible task. Few can actually do it all. To do it all, corners have to be cut. Unfortunately, because of feminist peer pressure, marriage and family are sacrificed before career. Many two-career marriages have crumbled. Children have been left at home alone. Can we begin to see the harm that working motherhood has done to families?
How about those families where two careers are necessary for survival? Not all children whose parents work are latch-key kids who are left home alone.
Absentee Mothers
Our society of working mothers is a disaster. Experts agree that the industrial revolution produced families with absentee fathers. Now feminism has given us families with absentee mothers. What does this mean? Essentially, our children are growing up alone.
I’m just going to follow this to its logical conclusion.
It is estimated that as many as 60 percent of American children do not have full-time parental supervision. Think about it. If children are blessed enough to be in a two-parent home, generally they still have both parents working outside the home.
85% of this 60% are blessed enough to eat because both parents are working.
The children are left home alone. If the family is run by a single parent, that parent (whether male or female) is working. Again, the children are home alone.
I guess single women aren't smart enough to find respectable, responsible caregivers for their children while they work, right?
This means our youth are growing up with an ever-dwindling amount of parental love, nurturing and supervision. The average latchkey child (a child returning home after school with no parent to greet him) is alone three hours per day. Some of these children are as young as 8; most are in their teens. When we think about parents arriving home after a difficult day at the office, we can logically surmise that there is not much quality time left for the child.
There are single parent families where women have men who weren’t men and left them high and dry. You’re going to blame these women for doing the best they can? Of course you are!All children and teens fundamentally need acceptance, praise, teaching and discipline. Children need to be taught right from wrong. Children need to learn how to be successful. This requires experience and activities. These needs are best met by parents. If these needs are not met at home, children have no other choice than to look elsewhere. This makes our children frustrated, angry and vulnerable to many dangers.
This assumes that parents who work cannot be taught right from wrong, cannot learn how to be successful, cannot have experience and activities, and cannot have their needs met by parents. Some people are bad parents, but not all people that work outside the home are bad parents. Some are actually working to feed and clothe the kids that they care so little about.Unfortunately, many children and teens are falling prey to unscrupulous adults and other youth who lead them in the wrong direction.

Hand me my Y.O.U jacket!

For example, law enforcement officials recognize that gang membership is up. The sale of illegal drugs to elementary and middle school children is also escalating.One proverb states, “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame” (Proverbs 29:15). Many adults are shocked by headlines about school shootings and other youth crime, but is anybody doing anything about it? Experts are looking for causes and solutions. It is a proven fact that children and youth living under the loving attention of parents generally do not get involved with crime. Most experts now agree that to fix our social problems, the family has to be restored. But how?
By beating your kids, right? I read the scripture up above. Stay at home and beat those kids, and they’ll never shoot anyone. They might even join a cult!
The solution to restoring families can only be found by understanding God’s intended purpose for men and women.
God’s Purpose for Women
Herbert Armstrong taught for many years that if you start from a wrong hypothesis, then the solution will be in error and the problem will grow worse. Isn’t that exactly what we are seeing today? When it was discovered that so many American women were unhappy, the women’s liberation movement assumed that the role of wife and mother was the cause of all the unhappiness; the solution to the problem was to have women reject the role of wife and mother.
They were unhappy because they hadn’t found the Missing Dimension in Sex. That would have kept them orgastically happy for days and hours. Look, Dennis, some women chose not to be wives, some chose not to be mothers, and some chose to do it all. All wanted the freedom to choose. All are faced with the responsibilities that their choices bring. Not all women permanently rejected the role of wife and mother; many of them did, however, stop sacrificing all of the time. They stopped acting like doormats and started being productive, living up to their real Incredible Human Potential. Women still sacrificed for their families, but they learned that their own needs to produce and create outside of a family setting were importan and valuable, too.
Did this solution produce the desired result? Today, many women admit they have not found true fulfillment in careers, and our social problems have increased. As Mr. Armstrong forewarned, the problem has grown worse.
Gee whiz, Mr. Leap! Mr. Armstrong must have been like, like, like an end-time Elijah turning the fathers to the children or something! He knew EVERYTHING!What is the cause of women’s unhappiness? We must look to the Bible for our answer. The cause for women’s unhappiness and frustration predates even the women’s suffrage movement of the 1900s.
You mean the cause for their unhappiness WASN’T the Missing Dimension in Sex? I'm confused. I thought that all of my problems were because I didn't strive to climax simultaneously!
For millennia, women (and men) have not understood the God-intended purpose for women. Elizabeth Cady Stanton stated this about the Bible: “I know of no other books that so fully teach the subjection and degradation of women” (Eighty Years and More, 1898). I am sure many of today’s feminists would agree. But this comment reveals a total lack of understanding of a woman’s true purpose in life—of what true womanhood is and how to achieve it.
Ever read the Old Testament? I’d have to agree with Cady Stanton. Dennis, tell me about true womanhood. You sound like an expert. You probably had a Principles of Living Class at Ambassador College and everything!In truth, the Bible’s purpose for women (and men), when fully understood, reveals a potential so incredible it is nearly unbelievable. Request your free copy of The Incredible Human Potential, by Herbert Armstrong, for an eye-opening explanation of God’s purpose for all mankind.
I get to be a God. A real God as God is God? Yippee! (Also, I noticed that because of the 'high volume' of inquiries, people can only get five booklets at a time. Is it high volume of inquiries that is the problem, or is it lack of funds that is the problem? Gerald having more legal trouble?)The Bible shows that God created women to be wives and mothers. “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18). This one verse reveals that man by himself was not complete. God designed a woman to be his perfect counterpart.A woman was not created to be a man’s slave, but his co-regent (Genesis 1:28). Neither could achieve success in life without the other. To be successful and happy in life, both would have to fulfill their respective created roles. Simply put, the man was to be a loving leader and provider; the woman was to help and inspire the man. She was also given the exalted responsibility to bear and train children. Men and women were created to work together to build a happy society that fosters growth and success. All this training on Earth was intended as a preparation for a future, more permanent afterlife. God intended that men and women share equally the opportunity to obtain eternal life (1 Peter 3:7). When men and women work together to achieve their designed purpose, they will experience satisfying fulfillment.
Funny, the word ‘co-regent’ isn’t anywhere in Genesis 1:28. And you’ve misinterpreted the I Peter passage as well. He’s talking to Christian husbands who already have eternal life, not people waiting to see if they are going to be worthy enough to someday get it.So how do we restore families? What about putting fathers back in charge of families and having mothers stay at home? To many, this solution may seem oversimplified, yet it is the only solution that will work. As long as men and women forsake the position in life God intended for them, unhappiness, frustration and catastrophe will be the result.
Well, it does seem oversimplified. Most everyone would agree that daycare and children being left alone is a bad idea. How about the “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” Or that pesky scripture about neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female? Can it mean that we can follow Christ and make our own decisions about how we live? Maybe the husband can stay at home. Maybe they can both work? Maybe they are just free to do what they want. Maybe you can’t handle that proposition. (Remember…if they both worked, the tithe would be bigger. You could get better lawyers for Gerald and send out more booklets. It's a win-win!)Our first parents, Adam and Eve, rejected what God taught them. They rejected their intended roles and they produced a child delinquent. Remember, Cain killed Abel (Genesis 4). Sounds thoroughly modern, doesn’t it?Will society fix our family problems? The answer is no. But if you seriously consider this article, you can change your family situation.
I am going to change my family situation today. I am going to start teaching my kids about the dangers of fundamentalist mind control cults.
It’s All About Me
The problems in our society and families go much deeper than feminism. What is the real problem? Feminism is a symptom of a deeper human sickness. After 40 years of history, it is clear now that feminism’s agenda has always been to seize power and change society to suit its own purpose. Feminists have been selfish and self-centered. Little thought has been given to the impact on others. Many now recognize that feminists have grown excessively selfish. The movement is now best defined, not as we, but me!
Feminists were so selfish and self-centered, they just didn’t want to do menial work and not have an equal education without equal opportunity. They didn’t want to be stuck without options, serving truly self-centered husbands with perfectly timed dinners, immaculate homes, and children who were seen and not heard. How selfish!The current trends in feminism are a sign of our times. It is typical of a human problem that has existed since Adam and Eve: Men, women and children have all become extremely selfish.
Wait! I know, I know! There were two trees in the garden. The tree of life, representing the way of ‘give,’ and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, representing the way of ‘get.’ (Do I get a lovely parting gift?)The Apostle Paul prophesied this sickness in our society nearly 2,000 years ago. He wrote to Timothy, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men [and women and children] shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:1-5). If we are truly honest with ourselves, we can easily recognize that this scripture perfectly describes our time.
How about we read this last Scripture and apply it to Armstrongism. Your beloved Herbert certainly loved himself (there are logs floating around somewhere), he coveted fame and fortune, he boasted constantly and lived in the superlative, and he was too proud to hobnob with the riff raff.
As for blaspheming, I’ll let God judge, but I know that he claimed to be the end-time Elijah, so I will make an educated guess and keep it to myself. The WCG falsely accused many people of sinning. Incontinent? Depends.
Fierce and despisers of those that are good? How about all of those “Christians falsely so-called.” Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure? Examples of all four found in the Ambassador Report.
Having a form of godliness but denying the power? It sounds righteous and holy, but when you blow the dust away, there is nothing there. Sounds powerless to me.
We live in dangerous times. Why? Remember, there is a cause for every effect. As Mr. Armstrong said so many times, all human beings are living the way of get!
Two trees! Where’s my prize?
Everyone selfishly seeks only what he perceives as good for himself.
Do tell! Strike everyone and add Gerald Flurry, Joseph Tkach, Dave Pack, Rod Meredith, Fred Coulter, or David Hulme. Pick one.
What are the results? Isaiah gives us the answer. Referring to our time, he wrote, “And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable” (Isaiah 3:5). When human beings live only for self, everyone eventually suffers. The Bible shows us that the worst time of human suffering is just ahead of us (Matthew 24:15-21). Mankind—which includes men, women and children—is bringing this suffering upon itself.
The people shall be oppressed by those who use mind control tactics to keep them sedated and obedient.
But there is hope.
Yes, there is. Flee the Churches of God. Run for your life. Don’t look back.
Although the Bible shows us there are some very serious times just ahead, afterward there will be the best of times. Jesus Christ will return. He will restore the family. Women’s high calling as wife and mother will be reestablished. Fathers will be taught how to lovingly guide their families. Peace, success and abundance will break out worldwide.
And it will all be just like , the happiest place on earth. Children will be entertained by that zany Big Beak, there will be lions and lambs grazing everywhere, and women will be subjugated forever. I’d better enjoy my freedom, now, eh, Dennis? Thanks again for the material.
Woohoo 1, Dennis Leap 0 or better yet Wohoo 1000 x 10000, Dennis Leap still o

UCG Double-talk and stupidity



I thank God Almighty (and I mean it) that I never joined the United Church of God. Yes, in the late 90's, I made some visits but never joined. Their reluctance to embrace the triune nature of God was a big (and mean big with a capital B-I-G) stumbling block to me and thus I never joined. One guy called Ned was pushing me to join. Let's get ONE thing straight, you PUSH me to join anything---you will very likely find me very resistant. Pure common sense.
In due time, I found out that the United Church of God is just another Armstrongist cult PRETENDING to be moderate or even liberal.
This what the UCG's approach from a website for youth on a topic which I have a strong temper for strong opinion I deeply hold. Instead of getting upset, the words in red is showing what they really think on this subject in ruthless jest.
Question: Is masturbation right or wrong? What does the Bible say about this? Is it a sin?
Answer: The Bible does not mention masturbation by name. That means we must ask some questions to apply the appropriate principles from God's Word to find His perspective on the issue.
We have to read stuff that may not be there because you teenagers and singles are too stupid to figure this out yourself!
It's obvious God created sex to be enjoyable, but what is the setting He upholds as the place for sex to occur? It's always in marriage according to what we find in the Bible. Sex outside of marriage, whether with someone who is single (called fornication) or someone who is married to someone else (called adultery), is always condemned (see 1 Corinthians 6:18 and Galatians 5:19-21). In addition, Christ said that even looking on a woman with the intent of wanting to have sex with her is a violation of the commandment against adultery (Matthew 5:27-28). So God clearly teaches that sex belongs in marriage, not outside of it.
In other words, “You are supposed to be ASEXUAL ‘til you married! No excuses whatsoever!!! Any feelings of a sexual nature MUST be CRUSHED! If necessary take many, many cold showers. If you have those feelings when you are sleeping, LOSE that SLEEP and stay awake ALL NIGHT!!! That beautiful girl you like, pray that God will deliver you from that EVIL attraction!
Sex is intended to be pleasurable, but it is obviously intended by God to be a pleasurable act that is shared between a husband and a wife. It forms a "pleasure bond," as some have described it, that helps emotionally unite the two people.
Na, na, na, na,na, na YOU CAN’T HAVE IT! Get married if you want it but if you are so horny and in a rush to be married just be prepared to lay this beatin’ on ya’,” Sex isn’t cracked up what it supposed to be!” Shut up and suffer like a good Christian! Teens and Singles you just need to be miserable and sexual frustrated before the Lord. It’s a good thing you know!

When you contrast that with masturbation (which is strictly for the pleasure of one person, whether male or female) it is obvious masturbation is outside of God's intent. It focuses on pleasing the self instead of a mate and is not the use of sex that brings the best long-term results in our lives.
What they really mean is that, “This pleasure is a temptation to lead YOU astray from the true path. It can never, never, ever be a gift from God to enjoy properly. WE SAY SO!!! Also, we feel like making this ruling, IT CAN NEVER, NEVER, EVER be a substitute in avoiding pre-marital sex!!! We are God’s representatives on earth; we can say anything we want!
As for whether masturbation is a sin or not, understanding the definition of sin can help us make that determination. One of the definitions of sin is "to miss the mark" (Vine's Expository Dictionary, art. "Sin"). Since masturbation misses the mark of what God intends for us, it is sin.
To paraphrase a double thinking former Liberal Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King, “It is not sin but sinful if necessary.” It is our personal opinion given to us by God Himself that sexually relieving yourself is missing the mark. You know he loves you but if you do it he will kill you. That’s that. If you feel like you are going to explode, tell that to someone who gives a fuzz. Too damn bad. We’d rather see you become violent terrorists than to masturbate!

Now this is the time you need Bill Maher of HBO’s Real Time to ridicule this pure inhuman nonsense of what religion brings. A nocturnal emission is sometime accompanied by an erotic dream following an ejaculation of semen, the same effect of what masturbation does. Why is this okay and masturbation an indictable offense? ‘Cause religion says so! Don’t you love this mad logic (NOT)?!
Here’s a much more humane treatment of this topic from a former XCGer Harlan Simantel (who was a member of Worldwide during the 70’s) http://www.angelfire.com/or2/thelordisnear/masturbate.html and my staunch reply condemning the puritanical fantasies of the religious right and other ultra-conservatives http://www.angelfire.com/or2/thelordisnear/feed2.html. I wish Harlan would correct a grammatical error. The word should mean "boldly" not "bodily". You'll understand when you see the link.

Here is also another sensible and humane article similiar to this issue treating this topic humanely as well.http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/Lustmt528.html .

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Woohoo does it again!



This brilliant philosopher-queen does it again one more time and will do it again! She pleads her case in the Painful Truth message board that mankind has a spiritual side and that is a beautiful thing,not to be afraid of. Mind you most (not all) of the participants of the PT message board have an atheist slant.


One of the saddest things for me is that the WCG robbed a lot of people of their spiritual side. I am a christian now, and I do know that there are some churches that are not high pressure, are not high demand, are not about nickels and noses, and are just a group of people who care about themselves, about each other, and about their community and the world.
I believe that every person has a spiritual side, and part of the human experience is the journey of finding out what we believe and why we believe it. I think that it is possible to believe that Jesus was who the gospels claim him to be without all of the bullshit demands. (Gee, that sounded rather religious, didn't it?)
Some might say that they will not believe because of mounting evidence to the contrary. I find it fascinating that the majority of atheists that I have met have been seriously abused or have had family members who were seriously abused by churches. I don't want to sound condescending here at all, but it makes me wonder if the point of this atheism is anger at the abusers. It's almost as if the abusers stole the right of people to be spiritual in addition to stealing their time and energy and money. That so pisses me off!
I will say that it is rare to find a church that doesn't abuse or use emotionalism to evoke a response in the hearer. It has been very tough for us as a family to find people who believe in God, in individual freedom, and in personal interpretation of the bible. It is amazing how many "church growth" tactics are thinly veiled abuse and mind control techniques.
Someone once asked me, after I explained my position on this, if God was going to send all of those people who don't think he exists to hell. I explained that I believe that people knowingly choose hell, and if I am smart enough to see people running from God in a way to avoid abuse, certainly God is wise enough to see the same thing. I don't ever believe that running from abuse means running towards hell. On any level. And if God can't see through this, then he isn't much of a god.
Jesus talks an awful lot about religious abuse, and yet I think that it is the most overlooked subject in the Church (meaning all churches that claim to be Christ-followers). People want to ignore these teachings and run straight to the Pauline letters, which are specific letters to specific people about specific issues and were never meant to be universal. They can't mean now what they didn't mean then.
I have a lot to learn, but I know that I do believe in God and in his love. I hope that I am loving and gracious to everyone in return; at least, I strive to be. And if I fail, I can always say I am sorry and ask people to forgive me. That seems to be the essence of humility.
For me, the message of Jesus was simple. You matter, and other people matter. And there will be ultimate justice, not meted out by men, but by God, who we can trust to make the absolute right decisions regarding this.
All that being said, I hope that I am not a "religious" person who alters facts to conform to my beliefs. I hope that I am a person who looks at myself factually and tries to learn the truth as I find it. I personally have done a great deal of study about how we got this present day bible, and I have come to the conclusion that what it says is very credible. I believe in the miraculous. I have seen it in my own life. I also believe that the bible is filled with poetry and symbolism that is not always to be taken literally.
Hope this helps you see where I am coming from.
Oh, one more thing: there is a great documentary that I watched tonight called "Hell House." I think that we could agree that this kind of "evangelism" in the name of God is abusive and sick.
May again I say, "Bravo! Bravo!!!"

A darn good article



If people are serious in having fewer Armstrongites in the world, you will read this article and take it to heart.

Apologetics is important. Not sentimental, sticky gooey nebulous "love". Read "Why Johnny Can't Believe" at http://www.tektonics.org/gk/indictment.html and make a serious difference.

Ron Dart turfed off the air, boo-hoo-hoo!!!



Now there some people saying, "Felix, you are just giving another XCG leader a hard time. Why can't you show love?" Well I am showing love to those are interested in the things of God, but are ignorant or not well versed in Bible study. I want them protected by things that may damage them spiritually. This is the reason why I support campaigns for those who are trying to get Ron Dart's radio program off the air on Christian radio stations.
As one person eloquently stated on a message board,
Poor Ron Dart has had to face the music for preaching his Armstrongite 'knowledge." Notice how he prances away from being called a cult because he officially does not have any 'churches'. When you preach garbage, it doesn’t matter if you have people sitting there in a building or doing it over the airwaves. Cultish nonsense is still cultish nonsense. (May I add: AMEN BROTHER!!!)
Quote:
CEM's Ron Dart reported:As some of you may know, we lost a few stations recently because of the determined, but misguided efforts of a self appointed cult watcher who doesn’t seem to realize that CEM can’t be a cult because we have no membership as such.

Ron Dart's group is called a cult for a very good reason. It's not the "religious right's" orgasmic joy of picking on Christian Educational Ministries. It is the garbage or to be more polite, heretical doctrines that Ron Dart preaches and believes that those who believe in the historic Christian faith must feel they must a take a firm stand against. This is NOT, I repeat NOT a freedom of speech issue. Ron can take his radio program this is NOT a Christian-owned station. Christian radio stations have the right to NOT choose ANY programming they deem heretical to the Christian faith.

Ron Dart still denies the triune nature of God and believes in the God Family doctrine, still does NOT believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ---though he may argue that he doesn't but you will realize his theology is that Christ paid for ONLY past sins and your on your own with law-keeping, he denies the physical ressurection of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ---which again he will argue saying he believes but notice I said, "physical" ressurection meaning that the crucified body of Jesus Christ was the same body that was ressurected---it did not evaporate or dissolve and become a spirit creature. Christians have believed for over 2000 years in the physical ressurection, in which Christ was raised and had new glorious powers which was no longer subjected to death. Ron Dart may think that this is "cherry-picking" but denying the physical ressurection of Christ has serious consequences. If Herbert Armstrong and the Jehovah's Witnesses ARE right believing that the dead crucified body of Christ dissolved and became a spirit creature, the problem of death has not been solved and one can look at I Corinthians 15 about the dire consequences. If the Apostle Paul was "cherrypicking" about the ressurection, well I'm all for it!

Read more about one's campaign (and thank God it has been successful so far and may it grow) to get damnable heresies preached by the XCG splinters OFF the Christian radio airwaves at McGregor Ministries on line at http://www.macgregorministries.org/cult_groups/kieferdorf.html . Enjoy and rejoice!


Friday, June 02, 2006

More Joe Jr. bashing???



I'd rather say it is all about defending the public trust. Not only it should be preserved and strived for in media, academia, politics---also religion and spirituality (though some zealously and fanatically believe otherwise). Despite his ardent defenders, WCG Pastor General Joseph Tkach Jr. has violated the public trust. Some will scream and argue childishly that I glee over Joe Jr.'s failures. This is simply emotively false to say the least. May I add this is only the tip of the iceberg of the tactics of some who want my submission to their "positive" view of Joe Jr. not respect (and they are two astronomically different things) I do not have patience for anybody who says one thing Sunday and another thing Tuesday and another thing Friday. I do not have patience for anybody who mentality knows no compromise in the sense that they are totally right and everyone else is totally wrong. Belittling and condescending people in general is in the books of Felix Taylor a cardinal sin. To quote Dixie Chick's Natalie Mainse lyrics "I am not ready to play nice". Hell with the "niceness police" and their tactics. They can call me "mean-spirited, unloving, unforgiving" or anyother unflattering attitudes, I am just gonna do what CNN's Anderson Cooper does (and does a damn good job at it), "Keepin' them honest." Anyone has a problem with that, that is fine by me as long as they know it is that "they" are the problem.
Whew!!!!! I got that off my chest but I am not finished the least. I really don't like bullies whether religious or anyother kind. I just want to link you up to a recent article in the Exit and Support site where an ex-WCG member wrote a letter to Joe Jr. early in 2001 with no reply. Also ESN questions why Joe Jr. got an Alamo Award in the late '90's. Read both articles and decide for yourself why there is a controversy in the public trust when dealing with Joseph Tkach Jr. at http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/child/artcls/tkach.htm#NOTE and http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/letters/ltrs06.htm#Joseph_W._Tkach_Jr._and_His_Alamo

Ambassador Watch is also back!!! Well sort of...




Gavin Rumney's modified version of Ambassador Watch is online at http://ambassadorwatch.blogspot.com/. Same old Gavin but a different focus and emphasis. I think you'll enjoy it anyway! Again WELCOME BACK!

Links