This Blog Has Moved!

This Blog Has Moved!
This Blog Has Moved to a more stable environment. Click the graphic above.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010


I was drawn in by the WCG back in 1968, and, being a teen-ager, I didn't truly suffer that much. My parents, however, were broken apart by the damn divorce-remarriage doctrine. They stayed separated for about a year and a half, but finally saw the light and and reunited. They enjoyed another twenty years together before my mother died.

I'm interested in all the stories, but I have to say, I believe that HWA had a lot of good, positive truths that he used to scam his way to power.

I do believe that we are born to become God, and I do believe we are children(all of us) of an entity who created us from love and wants us to learn

Ralph Haulk--Guest Editor

8 comments:

Purple Hymnal said...

"I do believe that we are born to become God,"

So you're Mormon now? Because that's where Armstrong ganked that particularly ridiculous idea from.

As for your contention that his "revealed truths" were true in SPITE of Armstrong being an incestuous, malicious, lying, thieving, little adman-turned-despot --- I think you still haven't gone far enough, in re-examining "the truths once delivered". But that's JMO.

Ralph said...

I merely state a belief. As to what "God" is or is not, or whether "God" exists or not, I have no way of knowing.
Actually I think you haven't gone far enough in studying the 'truths once delivered". Stay with me on this discussion. I think you'll find I'm up to the challenge. But keep it civil. You don;t insult me, I won't insult you.

Purple Hymnal said...

"Actually I think you haven't gone far enough in studying the 'truths once delivered". Stay with me on this discussion."

Pass, Ralph. I threw that baby out with the bathwater, ten years ago. Reading Templeton's Farewell to God (Or the first part, at least: It took ten years before I came back to the book, to read the second part, dismantling the Jesus Myth.

"I believe that HWA had a lot of good, positive truths"

This is pretty much the point at which we part ways, so as I said, I'll respectfully have to pass on this discussion. Every last one of those "good, positive truths" you cite, were little more than tools and techniques aimed at crowd-control (semi-Judaic adherence to "the Law", "salvation by works"), thought-reform ("one true church", "god's chosen people"), and income-generation (three tithes, holy day offerings, special offerings, building fund offerings, all puntuated by the particularly vile parable in Acts).

Which pretty much puts paid to any of "the truths" being good, or positive, in any way whatsoever. Unless, of course, you're referring to "the good, positive truth", of oh say, British-Israelism/Christian Identity?? (I know you're not, but that's another one of the "truths" of the church was patently NOT positive, or good, in any way shape or form whatsoever.)

IMO, the only "mostly harmless" "truths once delivered" was the Semi-Arianism and the idea of the Holy Spirit as ruach hakodesh --- and even THOSE are concepts that give traditional Christians the vapours.

Purple Hymnal said...

Bahhh I hate the preview on this commenting system:

....Reading Templeton's Farewell to God (Or the first part, at least: It took ten years before I came back to the book, to read the second part, dismantling the Jesus Myth), helped with that.....

....(three tithes, holy day offerings, special offerings, building fund offerings, all punctuated by the particularly vile parable in Acts)....

....IMO, the only "mostly harmless" "truths once delivered" were the Semi-Arianism and the idea of the Holy Spirit as ruach hakodesh....

Ralph said...

Ah, but you read the assumptions of humans regarding the assumption of still other humans.

The core teachings of Paul which do give christians the vapors is Romans 8:29-30, and Romans 9:16-22, which are, in fact consistent to what we are learning today, even within metamathematics(Godel's theorem).

There can be no "crowd control" if there exists no decison procedure by which we can organize in God's name, which Romans 8:7 tells us. And, since Paul plainly states that no such decison procedure can exist, it weould be impossible for today;s christians to be in any way a result of Paul's teachings.

Ralph said...

BTW, the comment on the "Holy Spirit" is interesting, but how would one in any fashion recognize if he or she actually had that "Holy Spirit" if there is no way the natural mind can be subject to God's laws?

Let's say we have the Holy Spirit because it is the spirit of truth. That's nice, except Gdel;s theorem proves conclusively that there simpkly is no natural way by which we can pacakge truth in one package, meaning that no natural mind can truthfully say "I have the truth because i have trhe Holy Spirit".

The exploration of the "Holy Spirit" idea requires yet another essay.

Purple Hymnal said...

You lost me with the Pauline stuff, but I do have an answer for this one:

"BTW, the comment on the "Holy Spirit" is interesting, but how would one in any fashion recognize if he or she actually had that "Holy Spirit" if there is no way the natural mind can be subject to God's laws?"

There are no "God's laws". There are not two sets of books (except maybe in Gracie's accounting department, hah!), one law for man, and one law for "god". Chaos theory posits there may be no laws at all.

Think a little further outside the box, Ralph. You still sound like you're trying to solve science with the Bible, to me. It's a formula destined for unhappiness, trust me.

As for the ruach hakodesh theology of the church, I said it was "mostly harmless", that doesn't mean it was one of those "good, positive truths"; given the "god's law" it enforced, I would have to say it was anything BUT, good, or positive.

In short, our semi-Arian, quasi-Judaic take on "the holy spirit" was, and is, little more than doublethink.

Ralph said...

I like Chaos Theory. But assuming there are no laws at all still merely proves my point, as my latest essay shows.