Everything I Don't Like Is Pagan

I am from an Armstrongist background. Armstrongism is a fringe Protestant group split off from Seventh Day Adventism. There are a few pillars which the system rests on: doomsday prophecy, Saturday Sabbath, Old Covenant legalism, a couple other points, and finally the belief it and it alone is a super-exclusive system revealed by God to the mind of Herbert Armstrong (through various sources like his time as a Minister in the COG7 church, the Watchtower Society publications, the Mormons, the book "Main Kampf", and G. G. Rupert's material, to name a few).

Being "the one true church" practically requires Armstrongism to attack other systems. This means anything Armstrongists are not familiar with, anything foreign to the every day humdrum of modern push-button, leisure life, is assigned the status of "pagan". In politics, the sentence, "everything I don't like is...", usually ends in something like "a Nazi" or "Communism". But in Armstrongism, it's "pagan".
I don't like Christmas. It's pagan!
I don't like the Trinity. It's pagan!
I don't like Chronicles of Narnia. It's pagan!
I don't like Proctor and Gamble. It's pagan!

Take for example this comment we got from "Larry" some years ago on the "Nimrod's Birthday Was January 6?" article:

"If anyone believes that Christmas, Easter, etc. Are not pagan look up where there orgin comes from. Question. Do Rabbits lay eggs. Is there a deer that fly threw air. These things are all based on a lie for little children to believe and once they even understand it they grow up believing that is ok too tell a lie. Then by doing this you only get closer thinking well its ok to tell a little white lie. Does God say it anywhere in the Bible it's ok to tell a white lie. What does this tell are children can you blame them for telling you a lie sine you teach them several every year. And all these things have a Pagan origin. Think about it."

Translation: I don't like these things, and deer can't fly, so it has to be pagan.

Now, Larry meant well in his heart. I get it that people are naturally uncomfortable with the unfamiliar. It's just how we're wired. It helps us survive. But going from "I'm not used to that" to "it's pagan" is a huge leap. It takes a personal preference and elevates it to a truth claim.
"I don't like that" = personal preference.
"It comes from paganism" = truth claim.

What do truth claims require? Evidence. And what evidence are we given? Either none at all, or 9 times out of 10 it's garbage. Hokum. Fake. Some old trope from the bottom lefthand corner of the Internet. 

Did anyone ever think to ask, what if it's not actually pagan? Oh yeah! We did.
Larry gave good advice, "look up where their origin comes from". So, we did. Many times. One example is the post Larry commented on and completely ignored.

Over the years, As Bereans Did has tried to dig into the claims and see if they have merit or if they're garbage. We have tried to test claims against the best available information. We even gave it a nickname. We call it, "The As Bereans Did Patented Gauntlet." What have we seen over and over again? The things we were told are "God's truth" were actually false. What we were told is pagan was actually not. The truth claim was false and built on bad information. No, seriously. Did you read "Review of COGWA Origin of Easter"? It doesn't matter how many magazines and booklets make the claim, and it doesn't matter how many sources are cited, if the sources are wrong. No court case was ever won where the legal defense started with, "My brother-in-law at the trailer park told me..." And every time I think we've looked it up to death, something new appears, like our recent articles on Samhain.

And we aren't the only ones. Our friends over at the God Cannot Be Contained blog also have great material along these lines. I recommend "Are You Giving Thanks to Ceres or God?". Makes some interesting and relevant points!

We have two options with bad information: either it was ignorance or it was a lie.

Morally, it's far better to be ignorant than a liar. At least you can admit your fault, eat a little crow, grow from it, and try to never make that mistake again. I've had to! How can I ever forget the king's feast of crow I consumed when I told my mother I had been wrong all those years while I was in Armstrongism? I bet my entire life on that system from the time I was old enough to make a decision for myself until I was 36. And I was wrong.
I am not at all recommending either ignorance or lies. If you have a choice at all, then choose to be accurately informed. But even so, better a Vegas-style buffet of crow over ignorance than to intentionally deceive.

Decide for yourself. Which is it - ignorance or outright lies?
When Armstrongist publications to this very minute parrot known falsehoods -- claims that have been known to be false, in some cases for centuries?
When they distort the past, including their own past?
When they willfully misrepresent the claims of other systems to attack those straw men?
When they make repeated claims about the future which fail to come about - and sometimes do it "in the name of and by the authority of Almighty God"?
So which is it?

They have every opportunity and resource in the world to be accurate, yet they refuse. When those publications aren't even trying to be truthful, not really, but their errors are called "God's truth", which is it - ignorance or outright lies? If we call it ignorance, then it is willful ignorance. If they had an opportunity to correct themselves but refused, that betrays purpose and intent. It is willful! Like when Dave Pack gets the timing of Christ's return wrong ...for the 927th time. At what point does willful ignorance cross over to an opportunistic lie? Do the willfully ignorant not lie to themselves? Yes. Does sharing that with the world in hopes of finding a few who will agree and provide some affirmation make it any less a lie? No.

Did anyone ever consider that maybe, just maybe, Christian people are fully capable of inventing new, ridiculous things all on their own? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, medieval Christians did not absorb every last thing they did from defunct pagan societies 1,000+ years prior? I've shown over the years that some things are demonstrably pagan in origin. I've never denied that. It happened! (I reject "once pagan, always pagan". It's anti-Biblical.) But that really is the minority of things. Want to know what I believe is the "most pagan" holiday of the year? No, not Halloween. Not Christmas. It's New Year. It goes to show you, Christians have invented - all on their own - quite a bit of absolutely nonsensical things.
Think about it. Christians are capable of reading one book and coming up with 45,000 different denominations from it. I think they've got sufficient imagination for the task.

I get it! Some of those things are just weird. They are! How could Christians come up with silly, infantile things like kissing under mistletoe, or hunting rabbit eggs, or Adventism? How could Christians come up with a fat guy who flies around delivering toys down chimneys? Why would Christians call a tradition after Yule, like the Yule log, if it wasn't from Yule? Sure seems pagan to me!
Well, there's the problem right there. "Seems" and "Is" are entirely different things. It doesn't matter what we think; all that matters is what actually is. And if there's one thing I've hammered away at since 2008, it's showing the thing everyone just knows is true is rarely actually true at all. There are definitely some details to history that we all need to be aware of before we judge, and most of us were never told those things, so we make exceedingly poor judges.

This isn't a matter of doctrinal viewpoint we're talking about. If you say you believe in soul sleep and provide some verses to explain, I could say I disagree but I see how you built your case and we can discuss. But if you say Christmas Trees are really Nimrod Trees and everyone's a pagan pagan pagan, then there is nothing to discuss because it's completely fake. A lie. If you say God didn't want people to know the truth so He let Satan change the historical records to hide facts, then there is nothing to discuss because it's ridiculous. It's unsupportable. Made up. Yet, year after tiresome year, there we go hearing this same story. Christmas is coming up fast and I bet we'll hear it again this year.

Larry the quote guy up there, he just wanted well enough. He warned about the moral failures in little white lies. OK. I hear ya. I know where his motivation came from and I genuinely appreciate it to a point, yet ... he called specific things pagan which are actually not pagan. So, that's a little lie too.
Whoops.
Gonna talk, "Does God say it anywhere in the Bible it's ok to tell a white lie," while telling a white lie? That has an appreciable effect on one's credibility.
(I don't mean to pick on Larry. He's just got the misfortune of being my example for this post.)

To go around "enlightening" people about how they really need to know some absolutely false claim, and that faithful Christians are really demon-worshipping pagan enemies of our Lord because of it, is not something I would recommend. You see, there's this little thing called the Ninth Commandment. You know, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." I take a very different approach to the Ten Commandments now than I used to, but I still find there are good lessons in them for all people. Making the shortcomings of our sinful nature plain to us is one of those legitimate uses of the law. Bearing false witness against your neighbor is to judge them falsely, and to judge your neighbor falsely is to condemn yourself. The entire business is a violation of the New Covenant law of love. The only way to be counted as righteous and forgiven is to be faithful to the Covenant you are in. "Righteousness" is a covenant word. Can't maintain that if you're violating the Covenant, now can you? No. So, it might be a good idea to just stop and think things out.

Which is the worse offense: to condemn yourself by falsely accusing your fellow Christian, or to participate in an old tradition with uncertain origins? I think Paul answered that one in Romans 14.

Don't like trick-or-treat? Don't go! Don't feel comfortable with Christmas Trees? Don't have them in your home! Hate pastels and eggs and bunnies? I sure do! Nothing says you have to have them. If it's wrong for you then it's wrong for you. Don't do it. Your faith is between you and your Lord. Please keep in mind your faith is not between someone else and their Lord, though. Let them stand before their Lord because their Lord is able to make them stand. Our job is to help and defend our fellow Christian, not accuse and condemn them (or ourselves).

I urge you - avoid the false accusations, backing up your claims with misguided opinions and ridiculous nonsense from known charlatans (like Alexander Hislop for instance) - or worse still, backing them up with nothing at all - and repeating lies told by Peddlers of Paganism whose real intent is just to fleece people like a sheep anyway. There's money to be made in these false accusations - like spiritual arms dealers, condemning people for fun and profit. As if there was no way to make lying even worse than it already is.
Avoid these things. That's my advice.

I pray God bless you and guide you to Himself, dear reader, this day and always.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Accurately Represent Thine Enemy

I was reading a post online recently about God the Son in the Old Testament. One person was responding to something another person had written. The first did not agree with the second and they were explaining why - making an apology, if you will. It was refreshing to read from someone who likes the challenge of reading things they disagree with. One line stood out to me, and it was: 

"I did my best to accurately represent him."

Incredible! And rare. That is a laudable approach and an example I think we all should follow.

Take a look at this paragraph:

"I wrote a new essay. It is responding to [certain author] of [certain podcast]. I'm hoping my language is much more irenic and charitable than the last time I did response content. I really like [certain podcast], and I like [certain author]. I disagree with a good bit of his takes, I agree with many others, and others make me go 'Interesting interpretation. I don't know if I agree or not, but it's an interesting possibility.' At the end of the day, he makes me think. And I like people who challenge me to think, especially about The Bible."

That is the right way, in my view.

I come from an Armstrongist background. Surprise! Bet you didn't know that. It's not like this charitable attitude did not exist at all in that system, but I can say without reservation that it was not the typical approach. Typically, I witnessed contests of ego vs. ego. You could find someone willing to die on every hill, as the expression goes.
(For those who are unfamiliar - the expression "a hill to die on" is a battle metaphor and means to have an opinion so strong you will not change your mind about it. It goes along with another expression "not a hill worth dying on", which means you have very strong opinions about a topic that is not important enough to argue over in the first place.)
Some people were willing to die on any and every hill. No topic was too petty to argue strenuously over and potentially risk the common peace and longstanding friendships over. Possibly the most contentious of all topics were calendar-related. I cringe just thinking about it. What a small thing to argue about so strenuously.

Take a look around at all of the Armstrongist splinter churches. Hundreds of them! Why are there so many? Some are in places where a small, isolated church is just how it has to be. Most, however, only exist due to church splits. One group of egos couldn't abide another opinion. Among the worst of all is the Philadelphia Church of God, where they do things almost identically to every other splinter church yet they frequently ridicule and condemn the other splinter churches and forbid their members from having any contact with outsiders - even if those outsiders are close family relations who attend another splinter. These splinter churches do almost everything identically. If two churches are 99% identical, why are there two? Because that's the Armstrongist way, that's why. A mother not talking to her daughter because of a disagreement over calendar dates, does that sound godly to you? Not to me! Yet, that's how it goes.
And it gets worse. There are the many, many times I've witnessed Armstrongists purposefully distorting the positions of mainstream Christianity. We have articles on this (for example "Primer To The Trinity Doctrine". "Primer to the Quartodeciman Controversy", and "Rome's Challenge"). There is no honor in straw man arguments. To not only misunderstand someone's position but to purposefully misunderstand it in order to distort it? Not good!
It gets much worse yet. The Armstrongist vs Traditional Christian disagreements don't even need to be real. I've watched people make things up whole cloth just so they could find some way to condemn someone they disagree with. I personally have been accused of all sorts of outlandish things over the years. Under normal circumstances we have a word for that: lying. Some people are simply too busy Sabbathing to bother with the Commandment against bearing false witness. Not godly!

These are the exact opposite of the approach I read online recently.

The strangest part of this is, there are several things mainstream Christians believe which are the same as Armstrongism. Want an example? I've given some in the past, but I will repeat one. Take the name "Church of God" for one example. In Armstrongism past and present, it is preached the one true church must have the one true name, and that name is "Church of God" - hence the names Worldwide Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, Church of God International, etc etc. (For reference, see "The WorldWide News", August 25, 1986, p. 5. column 2, paragraph 1.) Yet, none other than the Catholic Church has called itself the Church of God since the earliest times. There are at least four references in the very Catechism of the Catholic Church where the Catholic Church refers to itself as Church of God (see Catechism of the Catholic Church on usccb.cld.bz, and search for the exact phrase Church of God.) The Catholic Church calls itself Church of God. Armstrongist splinter churches usually call themselves Church of God. Same! Is it the one true name then? It can't be, if your goal is to use it to distinguish yourself. Yet, there the Armstrongist churches go, calling themselves Church of God as if they are the only ones, blissfully ignorant of what others believe because they willfully refuse to know what others actually believe.

I prefer the approach I recently read online. I prefer trying to understand those I disagree with. It's so much more civilized. How can anyone possibly claim to be an honest person if they cannot be honest with something they disagree with? How do you even know you disagree with someone if you don't really know what they believe? If they're wrong, they're wrong. But if they're right, they're right. Anything else is just self-delusion. Or worse - self righteousness.
Doing your best to accurately represent someone's position seems to be the only reasonable way. It seems to be the godly way.

(MAT. 5: 43-48) 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

It seems to me people distort things they disagree with out of fear. Don't be afraid. The truth can take care of itself. 

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

A Wake-Up Call to Rod Meredith

“As a former Protestant with many family members still Protestant, I feel compelled to warn you of a soon-coming disaster!”

So begins Rod Meredith’s article, “A Wake-Up Call to All Protestants!” in the September-October 2015 issue of the Living Church of God’s Tomorrow’s World magazine.

Ok, Rod, you have my attention. I left the Church of God community and am now what you would call a “Protestant.”  What’s up?

Apparently Protestantism is becoming irrelevant because “mainstream” Christian churches are trying to fit in with the world and don’t stand for anything anymore. Gone are the faithful ministers who strongly condemn fornication, drugs, drunkenness, lying, cheating and other immoral behavior from the pulpit.

“Do such God-fearing, Bible-believing ministers still exist anywhere?”Certainly not in “mainstream” Protestantism!” Meredith contends. “For if any such faithful Bible-believing minister like this did exist in any of these churches, he would soon be fired or figuratively “run out of town”.

This is news to me, as well as the other 3,500 members of my church, who have not run my Protestant pastor out of town after he made any of the following comments from the pulpit during the last 12 months:

“God's will for you is that you would become more like Jesus, and the first thing that the Bible addresses as we seek to become more like Jesus is that we should abstain from sexual immorality. Notice that phrase: "that you should abstain from sexual immorality."  The word "abstain" there means to stay as far away from something as possible.  And the Greek word for sexual immorality there—in English, it's two words.  In Greek, it's one word.  The Greek word is "porneia."  We get our word "pornography" from that word for  sexual immorality.  It's a word that refers to any kind of sexual sin.  It covers the whole spectrum.  It covers pornography.  It covers homosexuality.  It covers adultery.  It covers marital unfaithfulness.  It covers premarital sex.  It covers dirty, lustful thoughts.  It involves filthy talk.  It covers dirty jokes.  It covers anything that is sexually impure before God.  And the Bible says we should abstain from those things.  We should get as far away from it as possible.”

“Look down in verse 7 of 1 Thessalonians chapter 4.  Notice there, the Bible casts an even broader net.  It says, "For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness."  Now, the word "porneia" is a broad word for all kinds of sexual immorality, but the word "uncleanness" there in verse 7 includes any type of immorality, whether it's sexual immorality or any kind.  The word for "uncleanness" can refer to drinking and drunkenness.  It can refer to lying.  It can refer to cheating.  It can refer to stealing.  It can refer to mistreating other people.  In short, anything that is displeasing to God—the Bible says God did not call you to that.  Listen, God did not save you so that you can indulge your life in sin.  And yet there are many Christians who think that, because they're saved, and because God's mercy has reached down and touched them, and they have been made clean by the blood of Jesus Christ, and they have a home in heaven, that they can turn around and live however they please.  And friend, it doesn't work that way."

 "I am appalled by those who call themselves Christians, and yet they've justified sins, just made excuses for all kinds of sins, from the use of alcohol and drugs to homosexuality to abortion to premarital sex.  And I believe the heart of God is broken by Christians who have called light, darkness, and darkness, light and who are even turning away and walking away from their marriages, as though their vows to God meant nothing.” 

 “Friend, as a follower of Jesus Christ, God wants you to tell the truth, to be honest and to live with integrity, whether you’re under oath or not under oath. Whether you’re talking to someone casually or whether it’s a serious conversation, whether it’s in business or it’s in school or whether it’s in a relationship. Whether it seems like a major lie or a little white lie… He wants you to be honest, to tell the truth, and to live with integrity. Because we serve the Lord Jesus Christ, and He has said, I am the way… and what? The Truth… and the life…”.

Wow. I see Rod's point. That guy is a spineless jellyfish. (Sarcasm intended).

Are there liberal Protestant churches out there? Absolutely. Probably more than there should be. But are there conservative ones that uphold moral standards? Absolutely. You might have to look around a bit to find one that “stands for something,” as Meredith's article puts it. But what he wrote is intended to discourage you from doing that.

Make no mistake. I suspect this article is not intended as a “wake-up call” to Protestants, although if it dragged a few in to add to LCG’s dwindling tithe base, Rod wouldn’t cry.  But I am willing to bet it was intended to discourage unhappy Living Church of God members from looking elsewhere (as we know many of you are). Why do I think that?

Because right after Rod gets done telling us how bad the Protestants are, he starts in on the Catholic Church. Wait a minute. I thought this article was a wake-up call for Protestants. Why is he drawing Catholics into this? Now, I’m not Catholic, but I certainly have met some Catholics in the past few years whom I respect greatly. Some who know more than me about the Bible. And the more I talk to them, the more I see that some of their traditions have more logic and less superstition than I was taught.

Though it's now a cold war instead of hot, the battle between Protestantism and Catholicism is alive and well. Alexander Hislop capitalized on it when he created his disproven theories, and the COGs are only too happy to follow in his footsteps today. COG leaders are almost giddy when they point to the un-Christian ways Catholics and Protestants have interacted throughout history (as Meredith does in this article). There's no way there could be true Christians on either side of that mess! I guess battling and slandering other churches is sin unless you happen to lead a COG splinter. And I'm not just talking about LCG.

Here's the point: If Rod Meredith can scare you into believing that anything outside of LCG is Sodom and Gomorrah, then he stands a better chance of holding onto you and your tithes. Because if all Protestant churches are shallow, immoral social clubs and the Catholic Church is the great whore of Babylon, then why rock the boat and look elsewhere, no matter how unhappy you are in LCG? It's pointless. Sit back down and keep your mouth shut. Oh, and don't forget your offering. After all, next Monday is a Holy Day.

In effort to shore up his crumbling empire, Rod Meredith impugns good men who stand for far more than he ever has; and risk far more than he ever will. Unless you consider the risk Meredith stands for bearing false witness against men of God. As a former COG member with many family members still COG, I feel compelled to warn you: Wake up yourself, Rod, and repent of your errors. Unless they're not simply errors...

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

Shoot us both Mr. Spock

I once was inclined to reject everything HWA said just because he said it; but I eventually came to the place where should I come to a similar conclusion independently, I wouldn’t automatically hit the reset button, and demand another solution. It’s helpful for me to realize that HWAs idea’s were rarely his own; he was just a very good liar, and unashamed when he took credit. One idea is the way of looking at the statement of Jesus: Many will come in my name saying I am Christ, and shall deceive many. Herbert maintained that Jesus was saying that people would be telling the truth, that he Jesus was who he said he was, but they would foist off some other notion as being his teachings that would be untrue. Herbert himself indicted himself by pointing this out, and then misrepresenting Jesus.

Jesus said that if one wanted to be great, that person needed to be a servant, in other words have a heart to serve because of genuine caring for the ones served. Herbert glorified himself, this is not service, and a long way from genuinely seeing the value of others, and a longer distance from actually loving others, which was Jesus command. In the church of Armstrong, he had every one literally wash each others feet; I believe, few ever really got the message. They imitated the act, but the principle went right past them without pausing to say howdy. The principle was that pride, rank and pecking order was an unacceptable barrier to serving. If any one at the old WCG got the principle, it didn’t much show in action. We, the invisible people, can testify to how the high and mighty looked right through us as if we didn’t exist, if they bothered looking our way at all.

Now for those who believe Jesus to be an imaginary friend of those with a predisposition to believe in leprechauns and fairies, most would still agree that the golden rule is a wonderfully simple ideal that could supplant a mountain of do’s and don’ts which fill law libraries, and that reduce human relations to impersonal avoidance of stepping across boundaries instead of what could exist with the more proactive principle of treating some one how you would like to be treated.

I don’t want to be treated impersonally, like a thing. Anyone who has been processed by the legal system has a whole different view of that term “impersonal” than those who haven’t. The Indigenous people of the Yukon meted out justice in a circle of justice where the community and the victims could confront the offender; a personal relationship was maintained and restitution and sanctions would be agreed upon, and forgiveness may be extended to one who was repentant, depending on the offenders attitude, which could be more accurately determined because the judgment would be rendered by those who knew the individual. I would rather be treated like that. I would rather be ruled by that one principle reputed to be the teaching of Jesus: treating others the way we would want to be treated, and being treated in that manner. It is interesting that some people know this without it being taught, and a few cultures have employed it because it just seemed logical to them. I should try to do a mental walk in some one else’s shoes because I’d like them to do this for me.

Some who know not the Lord obey him anyway. To bad that some claiming to know what Jesus taught, busy themselves with do’s and don’ts, regulations and requirements, and never attend to the weightier matter; the heart of the matter. The fact that some just do the right thing by nature is pointed out by the apostle Paul in Rom 2:14 (which is clearly referring to intent, not keeping of days and seasons) “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, v15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. V 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets.” What fulfills the law? Rom 13:8 “let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.”

So many go on and on about Jesus, and likely saying things that are true; and many make Jesus look stupid hopping on one foot screaming Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, or some other ridiculous antic using the name to make a buck. With others the deception is more subtle, and it occurred to me that the situation is like one from the old Star Trek series in which captain Kirk has an evil double. Spock knows one of them is the evil fake, both Kirks are saying I’m the real one, shoot the other. Spock keeps them both covered with his phaser until one of the Kirks finally says: shoot us both Mr. Spock; save the ship. Mr. Spock immediately shoots the other knowing that only the good captain would be willing to sacrifice himself. I say that a true follower of Jesus is at least willing to attempt putting the interests of others ahead of his own, and to make a sacrifice; I say that the proof of the believer is in actions and attitude. What Jesus taught is an ideal to shoot for, but pretenses of measuring up look phony and drag Jesus name through the mud.

The apostle Paul demonstrated an attitude of self sacrifice which should serve as an example: Rom 9:3 “For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race,” So when confronted with multiple claims of legitimacy as being of Christ, this is the identifier to look for.

Jesus said that the day would come when some unspecified ‘they’ would kill you (his disciples) and think they do God service (Joh 16:2). It doesn’t matter who they is. The principle thing is that people would do bad things thinking that they are doing something for God. People have done evil in the name of God, people have done evil in the name of Jesus, to hold that up as legitimate examples of what must be in the heart of every believer or Christian doesn’t really logically follow.

I have met African Americans who hate every white person because: "they’ve been responsible for every evil on the planet for the last 500 years, every major war has been perpetrated by white people; the kidnapping and slavery of the Africans is the greatest of holocausts and was perpetrated by white people. African culture didn’t employ corporal punishment; white slave masters beat their slaves and taught them to beat their children which resulted in the current culture of violence. To top it off, it was white people who invented the atomic bomb, and as if that wasn’t enough, the hydrogen bomb; it is white people that threaten the very existence of the planet!” You know what? The arguments they make hold a lot of water; but I also know that there are white people with a great deal of compassion and humanity. Some people stinging from their own legitimate experience with racism don’t believe it. And you know what? I couldn’t convince them otherwise regardless of any evidence I might offer.

Jesus never told a certain ‘Christian’ to keep me, for the most part, isolated for the first 6 years of my life; or to make every break from isolation a “privilege” contingent upon earning it through “proper behavior”, a line that I somehow rarely seemed to be able to reach in spite of church people always praising her for “the most well behaved child they had ever seen.” My ears still ring with the smack, smack, smack of the strap lashing my bear flesh leaving bruises all the way up the back of my thighs to the small of my back; so not only did this “Christian” deny me my socialization period, but applied torture that an adult would find difficult to bear. You have to understand something here, this “Christian” wouldn’t let me cry, she’d be screaming: “I guess you want more, just keep it up, the more you cry, the more you get.”This “Christian” wouldn’t allow flinching, or it would result in the same.

To top it off, these sessions would only end after she stood there looking at my face, for however long it took, to note any sign of resentment, or any other resistant emotion, and the pounding and lecturing would continue until I could look like I had enjoyed it. Years later, commenting on how I had run him out of my life, my dad said that she was better at brain washing than the North Koreans, this is legitimized by the fact that I never told anyone; and never even admitted (even to myself) that anyone had ever done anything to me that I didn’t deserve until many, many years later.

Neither this, nor any other impropriety by people taking the name of Jesus Christ need be white washed. I have reason to hate if any body does. I have to be medicated daily to help me deal with the results of what a “Christian” did; but I know one thing: Jesus didn’t tell her to do this, nor advocate it in any writings reporting his teachings. Jesus taught something quite opposite of what I might have believed if my example of a “Christian” was taken as true.

Historically, many atrocities have been committed by people claiming to be followers of Jesus, and not everyone in the supposedly civilized US have experienced it to the extent that I have; but the evil duplicate is the culprit; the one who is true would at least try to follow Jesus example of self sacrifice, of putting others needs ahead of his or her own, and would at least recognize their error, and apologize upon some critical self introspection.

Personally, that one “Christian” example has never owned up to what was done in the slightest, even after the abuse of another child resulted in international news coverage; Conversely my dad who supposedly was the ‘devil’ (because he took the mark of the beast and went to church on Sunday), lived a clean productive life, served his country and his community his entire life. All I can say is: even though Star Trek is only a story, one who was following Jesus example would have done what captain Kirk did.

I read this to my wife, and she said: yup, Claiming to be captain Kirk doesn’t mean you are captain Kirk.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom.

************