Comments on Ambassador Watch: The Good News

I still want to hear his explanation on why women ...

2008-01-24T18:25:00.000+13:00

I still want to hear his explanation on why women that fear God die of cancer.

Hey Tom,Who cares, in your case, what Charlie said...

2008-01-24T14:00:00.000+13:00

Hey Tom,

Who cares, in your case, what Charlie said?

What you need to explain is why you won't answer my question to you:

Why is it your "divine" right to switch your beliefs, from Protestantism to your present Armstrongology, yet you afford no such right to others to do so?

Please answer the question, Tom, before you mouth off to anyone here again.

Because if you don't, like your own self-righteousness, I'll be on you like stink on your sh!t. (I learned this tactic while in Armstrong's Worldweird.)

Shitty Armstrongism. Fit for the outhouse of religions. And every time you "contribute" here you help fill the pot.

Tom,What? I don't get your question. My point is t...

2008-01-24T08:47:00.000+13:00

Tom,

What? I don't get your question. My point is that things happen to people...all types of people.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain to us why women who fear God, die of cancer. I am all ears.

Charlie said...Tom>>>"Sadly, cancer has claimed th...

2008-01-24T08:24:00.000+13:00

Charlie said...

Tom>>>"Sadly, cancer has claimed the lives of many WCG women, and it doesn't appear that anyone has asked, why?"<<<<

>>>Cancer happens to both MEN and WOMEN in and out of the WCG the same way that colds, intestinal blockages, diabetes, baldness, halitosis happen. Good things happen to people as well.<<<

Are these the reasons why women that fear God die of cancer?

Hey Tom, If you know of a church that we can join ...

2008-01-24T07:08:00.000+13:00

Hey Tom,

If you know of a church that we can join where there is no cancer, people are healed of Downs' Syndrome and have their amputated limbs regenerated, snakebites and scorpion stings are harmless, and everybody is financially blessed, please do share.

It's difficult sometimes to thrash these things out. Miracles might well be happening today, but I've never found a group in which they happen so consistently that you could actually point your finger and say, "Why, it's so obvious! There's God's Church!"

I don't know precisely how many generations following Jesus enjoyed miracles, but the miracles certainly seem to have become less a hallmark of Christianity by the dawn of the Dark Ages.

When the Pharisees told Jesus that he cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub, He explained to them the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and then sent them back to their own priests for verification that demons were cast out by the power of God. So, apparently, even the Jewish rabbis of Jesus time were able to cast out demons, which would indeed have constituted a miracle.

BB

Tom asketh: "Sadly, cancer has claimed the lives o...

2008-01-24T03:55:00.000+13:00

Tom asketh: "Sadly, cancer has claimed the lives of many WCG women, and it doesn't appear that anyone has asked, why?"

Tom,

Cancer happens to both MEN and WOMEN in and out of the WCG the same way that colds, intestinal blockages, diabetes, baldness, halitosis happen. Good things happen to people as well. It is part of life, what we eat, where we live, how much exercise we get, our mental state, and plain old dumb luck.

My father, like you, still thinks that herbie walked on water yet he has both diabetes and prostate cancer so don't go off half cocked about how not being part of whatever it is you think people need to belong to is the culprit.

It does rain on the just and unjust after all, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...>>>Off topic here, but I just not...

2008-01-23T22:24:00.000+13:00

Anonymous said...

>>>Off topic here, but I just noticed on The Journal's site that Sharon Brown, wife of former long-time WCG minister Frank Brown died of cancer on Christmas Day at age 63.<<<

Sad news indeed! Yes, her husband was Regional Director of WCG, UK, from 1975 until early 1985. He was relocated to Canada later that year. His position taken was by Les McCullough, who was relocated from South Africa.

Sharon was very quite, always well dressed and appeared very dignified.

Sadly, cancer has claimed the lives of many WCG women, and it doesn't appear that anyone has asked, why?

I am not sure what Dixon Cartwright is talking abo...

2008-01-23T16:10:00.000+13:00

I am not sure what Dixon Cartwright is talking about. The various XCOGs are simply Armstrongite clones. They do not disagree in religious philosphy, they only differ in the personalities that haunt their leadership class. This is a clear demonstration of what causes all the factionalism and intamural hostility. It is nothing substantive rooted in belief. It clearly reveals what is important to these people -- the cult of personality.

Odd that Tom Mahon would make much of the fact that people do not like criticism. The Armstrongite leadership, beginning with HWA himself, were peoplel who could never be criticized under any circumstances or "off with your head."

-- Neo

SmilinJackSprat said... Arguing that Creation m...

2008-01-23T15:56:00.000+13:00

SmilinJackSprat said...

Arguing that Creation must conform to preconceived notions of Religionists is another way of insisting that God must conform, retroactively no less, to the ignorance of arrogant pseudo-religious knuckleheads, in order to bring the universe into being THEIR way.

In most circles this is known as an idol or a false god...and the texts are indeed often called "sacred"....

We might need a new vocabulary to properly explain how Torah is illumined by scientific discovery, given the huge emotional revulsion the word, evolution, has acquired since Darwin published his quite innocent observations.

When I was a kid, I assumed Adam and Eve were cavemen. And Fred Flintstone was one his descendents. It wasn't until I got older than "I Learned" cave men were not real....

I think the real problem is religion looks at evolution as an explanation of origin, rather than a process (a mathmatically proven one at that - at least in the software world).

We would do well to acknowledge at least two accurate sources of knowledge: Torah and Nature

There's only one source of knowledge, nature. Torah is just a collection of observations men have had about each other, God and nature. The beauty of the scientific method is that, unlike religion, Science is open to being proved wrong.

(Science). There's nothing wrong with either -- even when a combination of the two reveals a universe that's billions of earth years old, and the appearance of modern homo-sapiens about 130,000 years prior to Adam's miraculous acquisition of a human soul.

Appearance? Placement? Colonization? Gene-splicing of an existing terrestial hominid equiping it for language and symbolic thought?

Something happened that defies the geologic times scales of natural evolution.

Off topic here, but I just noticed on The Journal'...

2008-01-23T13:54:00.000+13:00

Off topic here, but I just noticed on The Journal's site that Sharon Brown, wife of former long-time WCG minister Frank Brown died of cancer on Christmas Day at age 63. I would like to express my sympathy to Frank, their daughters and other members of the family. Frank, originally from England, was at various times the Financial Director in Pasadena, and the Director of the WCG's efforts in both Great Britain and in Canada. As I recall, Sharon's family was from the Houston, Texas area.

Corky said:And many more examples of Jesus having ...

2008-01-23T11:25:00.000+13:00

Corky said:

And many more examples of Jesus having brothers and sisters. Get real Jared, that perpetual virgin crap is a pagan myth.

Actually Corky, it's even worse. I was raised Catholic and the RCC puts Mary on a pedestal above all other folks, except Jesus himself.

For example, the RCC teaches that Mary was bodily "assumed" into heaven, just as Jesus was. They even have a "holy day of obligation" on August 15th for the occasion. (The "obligation" is -- be there at Mass, or else hell fire when you die).

But still, this all begs the question: if Isaiah 7 is literally true, then Mary was the 2nd person in history to "experience" a virgin birth, something Christians in general don't like to talk about, because nobody remembers the runner up. And thus the RCC has elevated this "Blessed Virgin Mary" myth all out of proportion to reality.

Jared Olar said... No Gospel mentions Mary having ...

2008-01-23T10:44:00.000+13:00

Jared Olar said...
No Gospel mentions Mary having any children besides Jesus. Only Jesus is ever called "son of Mary" in the New Testament. Many believe she had other children, but that is only speculation, unattested in the New Testament and not supported by any ancient Christian texts.

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Mar 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

And many more examples of Jesus having brothers and sisters. Get real Jared, that perpetual virgin crap is a pagan myth.

The problem isn’t with Corky’s interpretation at a...

2008-01-23T08:18:00.000+13:00

The problem isn’t with Corky’s interpretation at all. The problem is with the story itself.

No, the story says what it says, but Corky's "interpretation" of the story doesn't have any relation to what the story says.

Just to back up a bit, the Virgin Birth and deification of Mary are late add ons to the Jesus story.

What deification of Mary? Christianity holds that she is creature, not Creator. And how do you know the story of the Virgin Birth is a late add-on?

The oldest of the Biblical writings make no mention of such things because there was initially no reason to have them in.

I would say that strictly speaking your statement is correct, but not in the manner that you intend. Those earliest of New Testament writings do not mention the Virgin Birth, as there was no reason to include it in them. It wasn't necessary or relevant to the authors' intent. This explanation accounts for the absence of the Virgin Birth story just as well as the conspiracy theory that the story was invented later.

Our earliest Gospel

You presumably mean Mark, which is speculated to be the oldest because it is the shortest and doesn't include nativity and infancy narratives, and because it lacks the "Thou art Peter" episode.

indicates Mary had other children,

No Gospel mentions Mary having any children besides Jesus. Only Jesus is ever called "son of Mary" in the New Testament. Many believe she had other children, but that is only speculation, unattested in the New Testament and not supported by any ancient Christian texts.

Mary thought he was nuts,

Possibly. Some of His relatives probably thought so, and Mary was with them on one occasion, but it's a bit of a stretch to affirm with confidence that she agreed with their opinion. That's going further than the text can take us.

Jesus was hung on a tree and did not rise in any way, shape or form.

On the contrary, all four Gospels insist that after His crucifixion, He rose from the dead.

Finally, it is not overt ‘sexualisation’ to characterize the Virgin Birth as rape.

Sure it is. The story says there was no sexual activity or contact of any kind, and says Mary humbly agreed to God's will for her. Where there is consent, there cannot be rape. Also, Corky talked of "succulent" virgins. If that's not sexualisation, what is?

What possible choice did Mary have?

The same choice we all have.

It fits nearly every legal definition.

Must be some pretty interesting law books you've been reading.

As told, dogma such as this simply enforces the idea that God creates people as automatons for purposes.

How is a person endowed with the ability to resist evil successfully and embrace good consistently an "automaton"? Does a person have free will only if he chooses to do evil some or most of the time? Does a person who always chooses the good not really have free will?

Or, if there are negative consequences for choosing evil, does that mean we don't really have any choice?

Mary is made without sin from

Better, "by."

someone without sin

I.e., God. Mary's parents are not held to have been immaculately conceived or to have never sinned.

the gymnastics goes. This entirely undermines the special place of Christ as the sole sacrifice for sin

Nonsense. If God wills that the Messiah's mother be sinless, how does that undermine Christ's uniqueness as God Incarnate (something Mary is not, nor did she die for mankind's sins)? The whole point of Christianity is that God intends to eradicate all sin and restore human nature to it original goodness. If God chose to begin Christ's redemption by preparing His Son's mother in such a way that, in view of the merit of Him who would be her son, she would be sinless -- as Christianity says we all are to become if we will be saved -- how does it make Christ any less the sole sacrifice for sin?

and makes him simply an end product of a process in which he has limited free will.

Again, having the ability to always conquer temptation and never sin is not a limit on free will. It's those who cannot say no to evil, or who can only say yes to good on an intermittent basis, who have impaired and weakened free will.

Now I understand why I am gay! I believe in some ...

2008-01-23T06:45:00.000+13:00

Now I understand why I am gay! I believe in some parts of evolution! Thanks UCG for clearing all that up for me. Now I know it was not my mother or detachment from my father. I can rest easier knowing that a few thousand children of UCG have been saved from becoming gay! PTL! Only problem is UCG is filled with a lot of gays. Do they believe in evolution? Just one more reason why following ANYTHING that is preached by a COG minister is absolutely worthless. Time to go put on my pink shirt and white socks.

Byker Bob said...>>>You certainly have a distorted...

2008-01-23T06:06:00.000+13:00

Byker Bob said...

>>>You certainly have a distorted vision of how people can and do work together on a daily basis, in spite of their disagreements.<<<

You call it work together, but in reality, it is how they plot together to promote their mutual interest.

>>>Personally, I have usually welcomed constructive criticism, as it is often a form of valuable education, especially when it comes from an individual whom I respect.<<<

"I have usually," connotes that you don't always welcome it, especially when it comes from an individual you don't respect. Yet, the person you don't respect might be your most honest critic.

BTW, if it is factual, all criticism is constructive.

Correction to the last parapraph in my last post: ...

2008-01-23T05:39:00.000+13:00

Correction to the last parapraph in my last post: That should be "Don't" be that type of person.

Sorry.

Tom preacheth at length: "Therefore, to maintain s...

2008-01-23T05:38:00.000+13:00

Tom preacheth at length: "Therefore, to maintain some semblance of "peace," people who live together in disagreement simply flatter one other. For they know the moment they tell the other people what they truly think of them, they will become their enemies for life. If most bosses ask their employees for an honest opinion of them, they will never be given one, especially if those employees are hoping for promotion, a new car, a trip abroad or some other benefit. Hence, all human relationships are based on mutual deception, as the bible clearly teaches."

"In addition, the prophet Amos was inspired to ask the emphatic, rhetorical question: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" to teach us the impossibility of what Dixon is now urging the people in cog-land to strive for. Unless, of course, Dixon is arguing that being duplicitous and deceitful are vices that ought to become virtues."

"Tragically, this is the kind of nonsense that is taught in every walk of life. I see it every day in colleges, business seminars, management meetings, conference, etc., etc. And when I speak out against it, I become very unpopular. But then, I am not seeking popularity, but the truth."

Tom, As usual you cannot see the forest because of the trees. There are right ways and wrong ways to provide opinions and / or criticism of friends, family, colleagues, and supervisors. You have the erroneous opinion that people go around blowing smoke up each other's asses all day long. Each situation should be approached individually and the tactic used chosen appropriately. From your behavior here, your modus operandi is always the same...and consequently often brings out a similar type of response in kind. There are a variety of books, seminars, and other resources that you can draw upon to learn how to better relate to your fellow man, offer up constructive criticism, and also learn how to receive it and apply it to yourself. These are skills we all have to use every day. It isn't about being popular Tom, it is all about being effective. If your methods have the effect of making you hugely unpopular, it is time to examine your method and approach. If you were one of my resources you would get a couple of counseling sessions with me and if I did not see any progress I would regrettably have to let you go, for the good of the team. I've only had to let a few people go over the eleven years I have been in my area of business...I have found that most people can be salvaged with a little encouragement and mentoring.

Yesterday was MLK's birthday and among his best quotes is this gem: "There are none so dangerous as the willfully ignorant and the conscientiously stupid."

Do be that type of person Tom, you would be surprised at the ways your life can be enriched by simply changing your approach to people and life in general.

Tom, You certainly have a distorted vision of how ...

2008-01-23T05:01:00.000+13:00

Tom,

You certainly have a distorted vision of how people can and do work together on a daily basis, in spite of their disagreements.

Personally, I have usually welcomed constructive criticism, as it is often a form of valuable education, especially when it comes from an individual whom I respect. And, I don't believe that I'm an exception on this, as I've seen many others profit by the same process, and have discussed the process with them.

The problem, in the ACOGs is that this and other processes and dealings amongst humans are not given a chance to work, as "government from the top down" is practiced, and the natural processes are trumped and subverted by some Hitlerian type know-it-all who wants everybody to believe that his ideas derive directly from Jesus Christ.

For a typical person immersed in an ACOG, government from the top down would be the only model with which they were familiar. I don't know Dixon's work history, but I suspect that if he'd been in the corporate environment at all, he'd be familiar with the concepts of compromise, concensus building, and responsibility to a board of directors which is completely independent from the actual management structure of the corportation itself.

The obstacle to unifying the ACOGs is the tremendous ego of the leaders of the splinter groups, each of whom believes in government from the top down, with self at the top. None of these so-called leaders had as much concern for the main body or entity as they did for their own authority. Had they had sufficient concern for the membership at large, or were truly motivated by the Holy Spirit, or even common business sense, they would most certainly have found constructive ways to deal with and possibly resolve their differences. But, they're just men who studied under a guru who gave them a bad concept of government, and a horrible example of ego. To understand why the second generation of leaders is such an abyssimal failure, you have to scrutinize the original, from whom they learned.

BB

SmilinJackSprat said..."..knowing that scientific ...

2008-01-23T04:22:00.000+13:00

SmilinJackSprat said...

"..knowing that scientific advances would eventually explain Genesis."

Don't you just love Dixie-Science ?

Why don't the world's scientists "get it" ?

When are they going to realize that the Southern U.S. Bible Thumpers have all the answers.

There is a passage in Isaiah that would seem, at l...

2008-01-23T00:21:00.000+13:00

There is a passage in Isaiah that would seem, at least in the King James and its derivative versions, to insist that anything not in conformity with Torah is darkness, the light never dawns on it (8:20). This concept is corroborated throughout the Torah, e.g. Deut. 13 and 30.

Since the fossil record is unquestionably true, then either the Torah is compatible with the fossil record or the Bible isn't trustworthy.

It is absurd to force the geological record to conform to naive notions about what the Creation account seems to say in translation. Either the Hebrew creation account and the fossil record are in agreement or Genesis is wrong -- because the record preserved in the planet itself cannot lie.

Prior to 1300 years ago, long before modern scientific discovery, scholars knew from the Hebrew Torah alone that (1) the universe was ancient, that (2) mankind had lived on the earth for ages prior to Adam, that (3) the Genesis creation of Adam was completely spiritual (the addition of a neshama, or "soul"), and (4) that the evenings and mornings described in Genesis were precisely like the nights and days we know today.

What they didn't know was how this could be explained scientifically. So they put the matter aside, knowing that scientific advances would eventually explain Genesis. When Dr. Einstein discovered Relativity we finally had our answers. Amazing, is it not, that Genesis is fully aware of, and completely dependent upon, the concept of Relativity?

One conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Science and Scripture explain each other -- and when there is a conflict, the error is far too often a matter of misunderstanding Scripture.

Arguing that Creation must conform to preconceived notions of Religionists is another way of insisting that God must conform, retroactively no less, to the ignorance of arrogant pseudo-religious knuckleheads, in order to bring the universe into being THEIR way.

We might need a new vocabulary to properly explain how Torah is illumined by scientific discovery, given the huge emotional revulsion the word, evolution, has acquired since Darwin published his quite innocent observations.

We would do well to acknowledge at least two accurate sources of knowledge: Torah and Nature (Science). There's nothing wrong with either -- even when a combination of the two reveals a universe that's billions of earth years old, and the appearance of modern homo-sapiens about 130,000 years prior to Adam's miraculous acquisition of a human soul.

2008-01-22T23:44:00.000+13:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

Dixon Cartwright identifies what he believes to be...

2008-01-22T23:24:00.000+13:00

Dixon Cartwright identifies what he believes to be the core problem in cog-land(see the commentary on his web site), which he poses in the form of a question thus: "The problem, rather, is how do we learn to live with each other when we disagree with each other?"

Well, Dixon is asking us to solve an impossible problem, without being completely deceitful. For experience teaches us that human beings hate any form of criticism, however helpful it is.

Therefore, to maintain some semblance of "peace," people who live together in disagreement simply flatter one other. For they know the moment they tell the other people what they truly think of them, they will become their enemies for life. If most bosses ask their employees for an honest opinion of them, they will never be given one, especially if those employees are hoping for promotion, a new car, a trip abroad or some other benefit. Hence, all human relationships are based on mutual deception, as the bible clearly teaches.

In addition, the prophet Amos was inspired to ask the emphatic, rhetorical question: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" to teach us the impossibility of what Dixon is now urging the people in cog-land to strive for. Unless, of course, Dixon is arguing that being duplicitous and deceitful are vices that ought to become virtues.

Tragically, this is the kind of nonsense that is taught in every walk of life. I see it every day in colleges, business seminars, management meetings, conference, etc., etc. And when I speak out against it, I become very unpopular. But then, I am not seeking popularity, but the truth.

Max said:>>'Jesus was hung on a tree and did not r...

2008-01-22T22:49:00.000+13:00

Max said:
>>'Jesus was hung on a tree and did not rise in any way, shape or form>

..His impalement on a Roman stake ensured that he well and truly died
..The tomb was guarded by a detachment of Roman soldiers. Neglect of duty could mean death
It was officially sealed (cf Daniel 6:17) - to tamper with an Imperial seal incurred severe penalty
..The massive stone 'lid' was rolled away, the seal broken
..The grave-clothes included 100lbs of spices etc, cementing the 'bandages' together
..Jesus passed through the grave clothes, leaving them undisturbed - and empty
..The head wrapping was separate, retaining its shape (No 'Turin Shroud' here!)
..The tomb was empty, and didn't therefore become a 'shrine' for the apostles
..The Jews' attempts to explain his disappearance confirm the tomb was empty
..The authorities were unable to produce the body of Jesus
..It was impossible, given the guard, for the disciples to have 'stolen' his body
..The risen Jesus appeared to many, including a group of over 500 - most still alive when Paul wrote
..Initially the disciples disbelieved he was alive. They were transformed within days from cowardice to boldness
..The resurrection is the persistent theme of early evangelism

James

“I suppose I should have expected such unwarranted...

2008-01-22T21:52:00.000+13:00

“I suppose I should have expected such unwarranted sexualisation from someone who can't tell the difference between rape and voluntary cooperation with the divine will.”

The problem isn’t with Corky’s interpretation at all. The problem is with the story itself.

Just to back up a bit, the Virgin Birth and deification of Mary are late add ons to the Jesus story. The oldest of the Biblical writings make no mention of such things because there was initially no reason to have them in. It’s there, like so many things, because of later day politics. Our earliest Gospel indicates Mary had other children, Jesus had a normal childhood, Jesus was unremarkable until the start of his adult ministry, Mary thought he was nuts, Jesus was hung on a tree and did not rise in any way, shape or form. Reconcile that.

Finally, it is not overt ‘sexualisation’ to characterize the Virgin Birth as rape. What possible choice did Mary have? It fits nearly every legal definition. My view is that this is the stupid part of the story and it should be ignored. As told, dogma such as this simply enforces the idea that God creates people as automatons for purposes. Mary is made without sin from someone without sin the gymnastics goes. This entirely undermines the special place of Christ as the sole sacrifice for sin and makes him simply an end product of a process in which he has limited free will.

Again, the problem is in the text, some of which is so laughable that it simply enables atheists such as Corky. It would be best to drop the concepts of literalism and inerrancy, both in the text itself and anyone’s extra-dogma.

Stick to the be attitudes. The rest of it is a theme park.

Mark Lax

After reading the UCG's evolution article, I see t...

2008-01-22T20:29:00.000+13:00

After reading the UCG's evolution article, I see their planned move to TEXAS as a very necessary step. They'll enjoy living in Dallas - the epicenter of the Bible Belt.