Herbert W. Armstrong, cult or Christian

[steven lloyd]

Does he assume that science will never gain more knowledge than what is available currently?

Absolutely not. Quite the contrary in fact.

[normaM]

why is it that there can NEVER be a thread without some long winded no one else will listen to my prattle POSTER?

I want to believe in something - be nice if it wasn't just believing there are a bunch of blowhards on line.
Some people thoughts race forward whilst others try to decide where backwards came from
Nad every freakin time I post here I get called a troll
Ha, some of you live in the Penthouse of trollness.

And a woman spoke and said tell of of Pain
And she replied - " it is the religion forum of castanet"
Call people ignorant and you'll quickly see how ignorant they become

[Boda]

[quote
A belief there exists a Power greater than ourselves that cannot be understood (that some might call God) cannot be examined or proven by scientific method. Interestingly enough, it cannot be disproven by scientific method either


I sincerely hope I'm not derailing this thread and apolagize "Soulra" if I am but how can any argument offered by Steven Loyd merit credability if he belives that science cannot even examine
theories contrary to his belief system?

[steven lloyd]

I sincerely hope I'm not derailing this thread and apolagize "Soulra" if I am but how can any argument offered by Steven Lloyd merit credibility if he believes that science cannot even examine
theories contrary to his belief system?

Hmmm. A couple of posts back I thought you were actually opening an invitation to some open discussion on matters concerning “religion and philosophy”. My mistake, Please go ahead and provide us with the scientific and/or logical reasoning that contradicts any and all possibility that some sort of universal consciousness, shared consciousness, power responsible for creation and/or God or a Creator exists. Oh, and while you’re at it, keep sucking up to soulra (BA next?) for validation. That certainly goes a long way to help your credibility.

I want to believe in something - be nice if it wasn't just believing there are a bunch of blowhards on line.

I’m not going to try and claim I’m not just as much a blowhard as anyone else here norma, but as you seem to be suggesting, it would be nice to actually engage in fair and objective discussion of religion and philosophy on a thread titled “Religion and Philosophy”.

I guess that opinion is considered “whining” though :dyinglaughing:

Later and good night

[Mr Danksworth]

[Oh, and while you’re at it, keep sucking up to soulra (BA next?) for validation. That certainly goes a long way to help your credibility.

Leave me out of this, *removed*/ferri. I've stayed out of it.

[Boda]

I sincerely hope I'm not derailing this thread and apolagize "Soulra" if I am but how can any argument offered by Steven Lloyd merit credibility if he believes that science cannot even examine
theories contrary to his belief system?

Hmmm. A couple of posts back I thought you were actually opening an invitation to some open discussion on matters concerning “religion and philosophy”. My mistake, Please go ahead and provide us with the scientific and/or logical reasoning that contradicts any and all possibility that some sort of universal consciousness, shared consciousness, power responsible for creation and/or God or a Creator exists. Oh, and while you’re at it, keep sucking up to soulra (BA next?) for validation. That certainly goes a long way to help your credibility.

I want to believe in something - be nice if it wasn't just believing there are a bunch of blowhards on line.

I’m not going to try and claim I’m not just as much a blowhard as anyone else here norma, but as you seem to be suggesting, it would be nice to actually engage in fair and objective discussion of religion and philosophy on a thread titled “Religion and Philosophy”.

I guess that opinion is considered “whining” though :dyinglaughing:

Later and good night

I am interested in continuing this discussion about religion and philosophy.
Sucking up???? I'm only trying to exersise forum etiquette, because of consistent acusations of stupidity or others refering to their many degrees of education ad nauseum in reply to my opinion.
Can't you with your superior education just explain to me why the topic of "a power greater than ourselves" cannot be examined by science?
Steven please allow me to explain that I do understsand there is insuffucient evidence for science to announce a conclusive end to this discussion but to proclaim those that choose to participate in the argument as ignorant or arrogent? I need help to understand.

[steven lloyd]

[Oh, and while you’re at it, keep sucking up to soulra (BA next?) for validation. That certainly goes a long way to help your credibility.

Leave me out of this, *removed*/ferri I've stayed out of it.

My aplogies soulra. I earned that one.

[ferri]

please don't start calling people names! thanks!

[steven lloyd]

I am interested in continuing this discussion about religion and philosophy.
Sucking up???? I'm only trying to exersise forum etiquette, because of consistent acusations of stupidity or others refering to their many degrees of education ad nauseum in reply to my opinion.
Can't you with your superior education just explain to me why the topic of "a power greater than ourselves" cannot be examined by science?
Steven please allow me to explain that I do understsand there is insuffucient evidence for science to announce a conclusive end to this discussion but to proclaim those that choose to participate in the argument as ignorant or arrogent? I need help to understand.

You say you’re interested in continuing a discussion about religion and philosophy, yet make inferences to me referring to having many degrees of education (it was BA who made the reference to my education) and then implicitly charge me with claiming a “superior education”. My degrees are in economics and social work. My post-graduate training is in criminology and cognitive-behavioural implications. While I’ve a taken a couple of lower level course in philosophy, I have no degree in the subject and have not even majored in it. I also do not have a degree in theology. On this topic anyone with the ability and willingness to think fairly and objectively should be on or close to par.

... how can any argument offered by Steven Lloyd merit credibility if he believes that science cannot even examine theories contrary to his belief system?

Once again, if contradicting any and all possibility of personal belief in the existence of some sort of universal consciousness, shared consciousness, power responsible for creation and/or God or a Creator can be pursued by some form of scientific reasoning, be my guest, go for it.

If you want to skip that part and instead just dismiss the possibility - that is the decision to embrace ignorance. I am not saying either side of the debate is wrong or right. I know what I believe but don’t claim to be able to prove or even argue for it objectively (ie. provide evidence both you and I would agree on) – just saying dismissing something that cannot be proven possible is making the decision to embrace ignorance (interestingly enough, you will also be unable to provide objective evidence to the contrary we can both agree on). Thank goodness the scientists at NASA don’t think that way, or the people who developed the Internet, or etc., etc., etc. To dismiss the possibility of something that has not (and may never be) disproven, and then judge, mock and ridicule others for believing differently than you is arrogant. Do you understand this?

There are those who would love to fairly participate in such a discussion as you comprise to suggest. There are others who are threatened by the discussion (for whatever reason?) and only want to pass judgement. I’m not here to pass judgement on you for believing in something like this or not believing. That does not concern or threaten me. I am very interested in the ideas of others, but people rarely share those ideas on this particular board anymore for what should be obvious reasons.

Anyways, I do have to turn in (early morning ahead). I’d say we’ll see where this goes from here, but as soulra points out, this turn in the conversation is derailing this thread. Although I’ve always thought the discussion should evolve as it will, I will respect the desire of others to stay on track. Maybe you’d like to give this idea some thought and start another thread? I have a busy week ahead but will keep my eye out. Cheers.

[steven lloyd]

... how can any argument offered by Steven Loyd merit credability if he belives that science cannot even examine theories contrary to his belief system?

Just curious. Did you completely miss these responses to your posts? I just ask because you carried on like you hadn’t even seen them.

Steven Loyd why are you so convinced that science can never prove the existance of god(s)?

That is my personal position right now. I could be wrong.

Does he assume that science will never gain more knowledge than what is available currently?

Absolutely not. Quite the contrary in fact.

Good night

[Mr Danksworth]

Diane Benscoter on how cults rewire the brain.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ex_moonie_dian ... think.html

[eMeM]

Now that this thread seems to be heading back in the right direction I will add my two cents. The Worldwide Church of God today is much, much different than it was when Herbert Armstrong was in charge. Today's church is about as close to "mainstream" Christianity as you can get. As I understand it, today's "Worldwide c.o.g." holds the copyrights to all of Mr. Armstrong's original books, booklets, radio broadcasts, as well as the title rights for the magazine "The Plain Truth" and refuses to release them to anyone today as they clearly show how far the "church" has strayed from the original.
As the church was going through it's "re-organization" some members chose to stay for fear of losing their dear friends and status within the church. Others didn't like what was taking place and decided to go out on their own. From what I understand there are several "spin-offs" of the original Worldwide c.o.g group that maintain much of the same doctrine as Mr. Armstrong preached. The group I am most familiar with is the Living Church of God lead by Roderick C. Meredith who learned directly from and was very close with Mr. Armstrong. There is a small group that meets in Westbank every Sabbath. Website is: http://www.lcg.org or you can find more info, booklets, etc on http://www.tomorrowsworld.org
The United Church of God maintains the same doctrine as well with the exception of how decisions are made. United basically runs as a democracy with votes, etc on key issues whereas Living is lead from the top down as Christ did and will do when he returns.

For those of you that want to debate the doctrine: don't ask me - I'm so far out of touch with it that I couldn't debate my way out of a wet paper bag. What I will say is this: When comparing what the bible says with what was being taught at the churches I had attended I was very, very confused. When I asked questions about the discrepancies no one had a good answer so I started looking elsewhere. Living Church of God had all the answers to my questions and not just a bunch of the "feel good, warm your heart" fluff crap that every one else is selling.
If I ever make it back to church that would be the one - no doubt about it.

[Born_again]

Thanks for posting the weblinks, mm34. Wow! It's quite frightening that this kind of thing is going on so close to home. I had no idea how deep xenophobia ran, and is actively promoted! I did read of some of the online booklets, but I found some of them to be quite disturbing. I can't help but think that the authors are subliminally aiming to install a kind of self-loathing wretchedness and fear in the readers.

[Born_again]

Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised

Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.

Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

‪ The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪ The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.



This checklist will be published in the new book, Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships by Janja Lalich and Madeleine Tobias (Berkeley: Bay Tree Publishing, 2006). It was adapted from a checklist originally developed by Michael Langone.

[eMeM]

Now that this thread seems to be heading back in the right direction I will add my two cents. The Worldwide Church of God today is much, much different than it was when Herbert Armstrong was in charge. Today's church is about as close to "mainstream" Christianity as you can get. As I understand it, today's "Worldwide c.o.g." holds the copyrights to all of Mr. Armstrong's original books, booklets, radio broadcasts, as well as the title rights for the magazine "The Plain Truth" and refuses to release them to anyone today as they clearly show how far the "church" has strayed from the original.
As the church was going through it's "re-organization" some members chose to stay for fear of losing their dear friends and status within the church. Others didn't like what was taking place and decided to go out on their own. From what I understand there are several "spin-offs" of the original Worldwide c.o.g group that maintain much of the same doctrine as Mr. Armstrong preached. The group I am most familiar with is the Living Church of God lead by Roderick C. Meredith who learned directly from and was very close with Mr. Armstrong. There is a small group that meets in Westbank every Sabbath. Website is: http://www.lcg.org or you can find more info, booklets, etc on http://www.tomorrowsworld.org
The United Church of God maintains the same doctrine as well with the exception of how decisions are made. United basically runs as a democracy with votes, etc on key issues whereas Living is lead from the top down as Christ did and will do when he returns.

For those of you that want to debate the doctrine: don't ask me - I'm so far out of touch with it that I couldn't debate my way out of a wet paper bag. What I will say is this: When comparing what the bible says with what was being taught at the churches I had attended I was very, very confused. When I asked questions about the discrepancies no one had a good answer so I started looking elsewhere. Living Church of God had all the answers to my questions and not just a bunch of the "feel good, warm your heart" fluff crap that every one else is selling.
If I ever make it back to church that would be the one - no doubt about it.

All right, it looks like I'm resurrecting this thread. I've learned some new information for those that are interested.
Bolded above I said that I thought Worldwide still held the copyrights to Armstrong's original work. That is not the case. Gerald Fleury and the Philadelphia Church of God fought for and eventually got the copyright for 18 of Mr. Armstrong's original works. http://www.pcog.org/battle.php This book is an interesting read and tells the whole story in detail: http://www.raisingtheruins.com/
The Philadelphia Church of God http://www.pcog.org/ is continuing the work that Armstrong started. For those interested, here are a couple of links:
Free literature (including Armstrong's original works) http://www.thetrumpet.com/?page=catalog&s=2
Online videos of their program The Key of David http://www.thetrumpet.com/?page=video