The Swiss Bank of Weinland

In January of 2003, Ronald Weinland traveled to Zurich, Switzerland to open bank accounts investing in euros and Swiss francs. (Hyperlinks for iPod and iPad users who can’t access Flash)

Jan 4, 2003 (mp3)… That’s why we’re going, as I mentioned last sabbath, that’s why I’m going to Switzerland next week, two weeks.  To put monies in the church over there, into Swiss francs and into euros, to give us time.  There’s going to be a period of time where we’re going to be able to continue function.  I’m going to tell more when we come to the sermon about Two Witnesses about why we’re going to do some of that even more so.

Weinland Swiss Bank

Swiss Bank of Zürcher Weinland

Could this be a picture of the bank he chose? This bank is located in Rheinau, about 10 miles north of Zurich’s airport. Why would he chose this bank housed in a rather plain building? Raiffeisenbank Weinland is located in Zürcher Weinland — I’ll let you ponder that for a bit.

May 24, 2003 (mp3) There are times when I – I marvel.  I marvel at how fast the euro has grown.  I marvel at about what economists are saying it’s going to do this year We put a tidy sum over in Europe for a purpose and for a reason because of what’s coming, to continue on in the church.  To continue to support or to give.  Whatever God leads us to give at that time.  And we’re going to put more over there now.  Because the chief economists in this country are saying right now that we’re just beginning this process of seeing the Euro grow in strength and power.  Do you know where it is to this day?  We’ve already made around 25, 30 thousand dollars in a few month’s time, just by putting that money over there.  Astounding. Astounding.  We should’ve put a lot more in.  (Chuckles) But that’s what it’s all about.  Not just helping us to  prepare for things in the future that ought to shock you that this dollar is going down the tubes

The previous statement is from his sermon delivered in Portland, Oregon before a live audience of fewer than two dozen people (some of whom traveled great distances to see their spiritual idol). Weinland never put a copy off this sermon on his web site and did not send out cassette tapes as he normally did. If Weinland invested $290,000 in euros at $1.06/euro in January of 2003, then in May of 2003 at $1.17/euro that investment would be worth $25,000 more. Or if he invested $300,000 at $0.72/Swiss franc in January then in May at $0.78/Swiss franc that investment would be worth $25,000 more. So it seems that no matter how he allocated the funds between euros and Swiss francs, he put around a third of a million dollars in the Swiss accounts and certainly more than the $200,000 he mentioned on Dec 28, 2002. As a reminder, it is not illegal to have a Swiss bank account. What is illegal is failing to report to the US government your foreign accounts over which you have signature authority by June 30 of the year following, should the balance of all your foreign accounts exceed $10,000 at any time during the year. Which is obviously the case regarding Weinland’s accounts, but it is not known whether he filed his FBAR forms as required to report his accounts. Each of us will have to assess for ourselves how likely it is that he did comply with the requirement.

Oct 21, 2008 (mp3): We have some monies in Europe that are set aside.  I’m just going to be real blunt with everybody.  Because there are those who find fault with us, in the world.  And even with our government.  OK.  That we are doing things in a certain way and we always have because everything we do is about God’s church.  OK.  So much so that we have tried to diversify various things.  We put money in Europe a long time ago, several years ago.  In Switzerland.  And we intend to use it.  Or in Switzerland or somewhere.  God’s Two Witnesses.  We started putting money there before I knew that’s what it  was all about, and what was going to take place.

Weinland has claimed a membership of 300 for several years prior to 2008. If we estimate his revenue from each member at $2000 per year considering tithes and offerings, that works out to a total of $600,000 per year. Church operations would not use much of this, considering that only a few locations meet regularly in rented facilities. The costs to operate a website and provide Internet streaming audio and mail out cassette tapes are minimal. The rental of a facility for the Feast of Tabernacles could be costly but would be reduced according to the number of people who rent rooms in the hotel. I find it quite plausible that he could accumulate such a fund. I also understand that there was a special fundraiser to initially fund these accounts.  I wonder if he had someone as a second signature on the accounts, maybe Laura?  Or Audra, COG-PKG bookkeeper?  Or maybe even Jeremy, who now lives in Germany. But you have to wonder: Why would the end-time Two Witnesses with special witness powers need a Swiss bank account?

Tags:

178 Comments

  • Baywolfe says:

    “But you have to wonder: Why would the end-time Two Witnesses with special witness powers need a Swiss bank account?”

    Yeah, kind of up there with, “Why does God need a starship?” {Star Trek V: The Final Frontier}, or why wouldn’t a Catholic drink poisoned wine that had been magically transformed into the Blood of Christ?, or…

    We all know the answer to that question. It’s just a matter of how much depth each of us places in the answer, from “Ron’s a fraud” at one end to “Christianity is a fraud” in the middle, to “All religion is a fraud” at the far end.

  • Whisper says:

    Mayhap my bible study is in low gear of late but how many prophets recorded in the bible’s requested money in such magnitude? Or any magnitude at all?
    Apostles on the other hand had a socialism view on things and brought togethor funds from the faithful to administer the whole, but again is any funds ever given to Rons ministry ever used for the faithful?
    Con men on the other hand have always solicited such funds from the people who listen and have always kept the proceeds for their own personal use.

    For the most powerful of all the prophets of God Ron seems to be a wee bit weak in dependancy on God. Not to be mistaken for Ron’s requirements for his sheep, whom he states rather often must depend soley upon God.
    Ron is well above the rank and file Sheeple though and I rather guess that the “spokesman” has other special requirements such as money and swiss bank accounts…

    Go figure? I would rather think that Ron would be more awesome if he was able to become known world wide without any funds of mortal help.
    On that note, who does know about Gods Final Witness beyond a mere name mentioned?

  • JB says:

    It has always amazed me that someone with so many titles does nothing to promote his message other then promote himself to his little flock. It appears that his time is spent on twisting words and bible passages to hold his flock captive so they believe everything he says and they keep giving money. Putting money into a Swiss bank ( and not even the amount he originally said) in his name, should have had everyone running to the door. Perhaps the millions he says that will be coming to PKG in these “end times” isn’t people but millions of dollars that will be coming to him!! Amazing!!

  • Mark says:

    “Why would the end-time Two Witnesses with special witness powers need a Swiss bank account?”

    Ooh, I know, I know, pick me!

    So when his “ministry” runs into the ground, he and his wife Laura have an escape route. He’s “storing up treasures on earth”.
    Apparently he doesn’t want to eat locust.

  • angel says:

    The answer to the question “Why does God need money?” is simple – He doesn’t. The NT does not COMMAND Christians to have buildings to worship in, to have pastors on staff, or to give any particular percentage of their earnings to anyone. It says we should give to those in need – cheerfully, and not to be hypocritical by pretending to give more than you really do.

    The church I am currently attending has beautiful buildings/furnishings/landscaping. They collect an offering, but no particular amount is asked for or expected (none from visitors) and no one keeps track of what you give (other than for those who want records for tax purposes). God provides whatever is needed, and any project that lacks funding is considered something God doesn’t want to do.

    I mention this to compare it to what is going on at COG-PKG.

    Someone like Ron would give a bad name to any belief system, so it’s worth noting that not all Christians believe God needs your money, spaceships, or any other silly stuff like that. Scripture says we should avoid the appearance of evil, and I can’t think of anything more shady-sounding than a pastor telling his congregation he’s taking their money out of the country, putting it in his name not the church’s, in a bank where it will be impossible for them to have access to it or any clear indication of how he intends to use it so they can decide if they want to continue financing his projects.

  • jack635 says:

    I can’t think of anything more shady-sounding than a pastor telling his congregation he’s taking their money out of the country, putting it in his name not the church’s, in a bank where it will be impossible for them to have access to it or any clear indication of how he intends to use it so they can decide if they want to continue financing his projects.

    yes. no matter what Ron does in the future, that money is his. If his congregation tries to give him the boot, lol, good luck trying to get the money to open a new church.

  • Whisper says:

    ” If his congregation tries to give him the boot”

    There is no giving Ron “the boot”, can’t happen. Ron is the Church and the Church is Ron from a legal standpoint. Ron is the sole administrator and owner of PKG, the sheeples are mere visitors giving $$. They have no rights what-so-ever. On the other hand Ron can boot them out of his church at will. They are VISITING Rons company and choosing to donate to Ron’s cause. There is no church body, no oversight comittee, no board, no one. The elders are given a “name” only, no rights and to legal position in the company. The company has one person in it, Ron. Those sheep who’m think they are “apart” of the church are only “visiting”. All the power is in Ron for Ron’s church is incorporated and Ron is the only person on the company roles. Ron is a church of one, but everybody already knew that…

    Go figure?

  • Mal says:

    It seems this blog is attempting to portray Ron Weinland as a devious, money grabbing charlatan, deliberately setting out to cheat his congregation and build up a nice retirement nest egg for himself and his wife.

    On the contrary, this man comes across to me as someone total focussed on God, totally focussed on the soon return of Jesus Christ, fully believing in his ‘timelines’ and his own interpretation of how the breakup of WCOG formation of his own PKG splinter fits in with Scripture. No thought could be further from this man’s mind than a cushy comfortable ‘retirement’ at the expense of his flock.

    Yes, he may be deluded and sincerely WRONG, but nevertheless he comes across as someone who is sincere in what he believes, and not the thieving rogue this blog seems intent on portraying.

    In view of the fact that he has been expecting the demise of the USA and USA economy, it would seem reasonable that he would be wise in trying to protect church funds without there being a hidden and selfish agenda behind it.

    Most churches/ministries I have been involved with encourage sacrificial giving, with a minimum tithe of 10 per cent as the biblical norm.

  • Karen Mustard says:

    Hey Mal, One thing you should know about Ron is he has a history of taking advantage of the good nature of his “flock”… It’s a long history and story but one thing he did…when he was a pastor at another area and part of eith WCG or Global…one of the splinters, he KNEW he was leaving the church but before he did…he got all these UNKNOWING church members to donate time, money, materials…etc to build or remodel a big ole house he later sold for a big profit and quit the church and moved away. Had those good people known he was about to “split”…they probably wouldn’t have chosen to work like dogs and give him their talents.

    He has also caused splits in congregations and everything else.

    Other folks on this forum can give better details about his manuvers more than I can, but he is just a piece of work…if you look at his WHOLE ministry efforts. I believe he truly believes what he is saying which gives him the ability to totally justify anything he does to accomplish his beliefs… I think his own daughter is concerned about him looking out for #1 so she has secured her own attorney in the IRS case.

  • angel says:

    Mal,

    I can’t speak for others on this blog, but my opinion of Ron’s behavior is just that – my opinion – just as your take on it is your opinion. I would have the same opinion of ANY pastor who behaved this way, so you are wrong to think I’m somehow picking on poor Mr. Weinland.

    I personally would not support a pastor who chooses to travel the world visiting his followers (on their dime) and spending wads of money promoting his books/website (particularly as God isn’t expanding his ministry). I don’t really care how focused he comes across or how “sincerely” deluded he is; he’s wrong and he refuses to admit it, so that doesn’t sound sincere to me – it sounds like he’s stubbornly and pridefully sticking to his guns.

    You said “No thought could be further from this man’s mind than a cushy comfortable ‘retirement’ at the expense of his flock’; well, he certainly doesn’t have a problem living a cushy comfortable lifestyle at their expense, so why would you think that?

    You said “In view of the fact that he has been expecting the demise of the USA and USA economy, it would seem reasonable that he would be wise in trying to protect church funds without there being a hidden and selfish agenda behind it.” Why is he trying to protect it FROM the church, then? If he is killed, as he supposedly thinks he will be, how will that money help the church?

    You said “Most churches/ministries I have been involved with encourage sacrificial giving, with a minimum tithe of 10 per cent as the biblical norm”. Ron doesn’t “encourage” that, Mal, he DEMANDS it – and not just 10%. What churches/ministries have you been involved with that refuse to baptize you until you’ve paid your first tithe?

    I think your fascination with his books have given you a very unrealistic view of him, Mal; he spends a great deal of time complaining about us “fault finders” so it seems you focus more on that than on the fact that there is indeed a lot of fault to find! And it should not be ignored because it’s affecting people’s lives – even yours.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Mal said: “It seems this blog is attempting to portray Ron Weinland as a devious, money grabbing charlatan, deliberately setting out to cheat his congregation and build up a nice retirement nest egg for himself and his wife.”

    Gee, it’s not too hard:
    — the IRS Criminal Investigation of Ron for tax evasion: a matter of public record
    — the $381,000 value of his house: a matter of public record (somehow despite being “total focussed on God, totally focussed on the soon return of Jesus Christ,”, he found time to spend tithe receipts on it
    — his Swiss bank accounts, a matter of public record from his own statements
    — Laura’s jewelry, a matter of public record from his own statements.

    It requires a rabid Weinland defender to ignore all of that.

  • RK says:

    Hello Mal,

    A lot of people on this blog know exactly where you are coming from because they have already been there and done that.

    Just speaking for myself, there was also a time when I totally believed in people much like Ron, and I would have been strongly inclined to defend them if I heard someone speaking bad about them.

    I would just like to say two things that I would ask you to keep in mind as time goes on.

    #1. As someone said on another website, whether the cult leader is sincere or not, the result is still the same.

    #2. As far as people portraying Ron Weinland as being a money grabbing charlatan, just remember what they say about DUCKS. That is, if it walks like one, and quacks like one, well then ………..

    As time goes on, follow the money, my friend.

  • Atrocious says:

    It seems to me that Ron is digging his own grave – given his misconduct is all a public record. How else can you look at what he has done and what he is doing than watching out for number one, himself? I mean, give me a break, Mal! WE don’t “portray Ron as a devious, money grabbing charlatan, deliberately setting out to cheat his congregation and build up a nice retirement nest egg for himself and his wife”, HE does. How? By his own words and actions. If you believe he is a ‘prophet’ or ‘one of the two witnesses’ or ‘a man of God, who God speaks to’, then your thinking will be angled toward what you said. But if you see him for how he REALLY is, a false prophet, not one of the two witnesses, and not a man of God, then you can see the truth. The facts say it all.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Here’s what someone said about Ron Weinland:

    “Well, what if Ron Weinland and what he says doesn’t come to pass in April? What if these things don’t happen in 2008?” I think about what I’ve said in interviews. There’s really a simple answer — he’s a false prophet. I get tons of email every day from people saying ‘We’ll, I guess in 2009 you’re going to be saying this or saying that, or trying to explain to people..” No, I’m done. Just to be real candid with you, so people know and people understand, ……, again that’s the only answer. There is only one answer. …. The world is not like that. You know people who are doing what is not right and they claim certain things or say certain things about what is given to them, and it doesn’t come to pass — then they have to madly change everything and do something else. Or say ‘God showed me this, and I just didn’t understand this, or God has revealed this to me now, and blah blah blah blah. Because when it comes down to it, it’s about the paycheck. It’s about what are they going to do from here on out.”

    And who was the someone who said that what Ron is doing is “about the paycheck”? It was Ron himself.

  • Steven says:

    I am so ready for this to be over one way or another. Ron ruined my life and he continues to do the same to other people. I suppose he is going
    to keep stringing people along until 2012. I’d like to think that his followers will give it up when he is wrong again, but I thought for sure they would
    have given up in April 2008 also. I’m sure he’ll find a way to keep it going.

  • jack635 says:

    “It seems this blog is attempting to portray Ron Weinland as a devious, money grabbing charlatan, deliberately setting out to cheat his congregation and build up a nice retirement nest egg for himself and his wife.”

    How is telling the truth twisted into “attempting to portray”?

    I did not learn about Ronald Weinland on this blog. I downloaded his book and skimmed through a chapter I thought would let me into his mind rather quickly. I then listened to one of his “sermons”. In the first couple of sentences I could tell what kind of person he is by his tone.

    He is poison. And that’s the truth.

  • Kirrily XPKG says:

    Mal, almost every member of PKG i knew gave GREATLY (eg. life savings, sold belongings, Wayne quit his job, living on bare minimums, spent childrens and grandchildrens inheritance etc etc) to RON’S, yes RON’S cause – except of course, RON HIMSELF. If Ron truly WAS deluded, why hasn’t he done the SAME as what he has expected of his followers? No, instead buys diamonds for his wench, goes on cruises, keeps his beautiful home, prepares defence against the IRS case, and travels around the world.

    That should say it all.

    Steven, forgive me for my question – just wondering if you have posted here before? I know we have a Steve that posts here too…. I am X PKG, left in Jan 2009 – just wondered about your story, when you left, why you left etc. If you feel like talking about it….

  • angel says:

    In a strange way, Ron is probably able to justify his behavior in his own mind because after all, he did tell his church what he was doing with the money and apparently no one challenged him (forget about the fact that he wasn’t going to allow anyone to question him). He’s informed them that they should accept whatever he says as coming from God (except when he says it’s not), so why should he be accountable for how the money is used – and he certainly doesn’t need to worry about what will happen to his church if something happens to him and his followers (who have scaled back their standard of living to accommodate his) can’t get their hands on the cash. THEY need to rely on God.

    Yeah, he told them; but that doesn’t make what he’s doing right, and it’s not right to take advantage of people who are afraid to cross you. He’s convinced them they HAVE TO pay tithe(s), that they will be rejected by God and PKG if they don’t, because paying Ron is SO IMPORTANT he won’t even baptize them until they send him a check.

    The role of a pastor is to serve – not to BE served. He should lead by example, not hold himself above others by expecting them to do what he is not willing to do; give sacrificially.

  • Whisper says:

    Ron is totally focused on God… when Ron is talking about God. But that is far from 24/7. Ron is focused on Ron and Rons Pride, Rons new Titles, Rons Wifes jewelry, Rons paid for $381,000 house, Rons cars, Rons travel across the world, Rons books, Rons…

    These two rather different Ron’s do not come togethor and dove-tail. They are 2 different people and one of them, I think, is the stronger of the two.
    When all is said and done Ron will have all the $$ and the home and the cars and the Swiss accounts, and… but not the faith in God.
    That is the end result, Ron will keep the delusion that God did not continue with the Great Tribulations because people did not believe strong enough. Ron will remember this from the safety of his own golf course side paid home, while driving his paid cars, while taking his paid for vacations…

    Ron will go on, comfortably so on the $$ that the sheeples gave.
    How are the sheeples going to manage? How do they manage now?

    Go figure?

  • jack635 says:

    he won’t even baptize them until they send him a check.

    Doesn’t that go against what Christianity is supposedly all about. Imagine if Ron were to be given the power to heal …..I wonder how much Ron would charge to heal leprosy? Or how much to give a blind man his sight?

    You cannot serve God AND Money.

  • angel says:

    “I wonder how much Ron would charge to heal leprosy? Or how much to give a blind man his sight?”

    The way things are going, we’ll never get to find out.

  • todd says:

    IRONIC….that the Catholic church was guilty of granting salvation through payments and such which stirred up the Lutheran movement back in (i think) the 1500’s
    RW rails against the Catholic church and is guilty of the same sort of things….HMMMMMM.

  • Steve says:

    Hi Kirrily, saw what you wrote about wonderin if steven was me lol….nah we are different peeps…just lettin ya know!

  • Mark says:

    The thing is, Ron focus isn’t on God. He teaches heresy. If his focus was on God, he would be obedient to God, but he is not.
    Just remember his words in 2008 that “if by Pentecost” what he said didn’t materialize then he is a false prophet and will stop preaching. Then he realized that it was all imploding and it scared him. He’s been trying to hang on to what he has ever since. So, yes, he is a charlatan.

  • Burch 26/50 says:

    About four years ago I was led by the spirit(those who seek ,shall find) to Ron’s web-site and books,I sent for both,bought an Ipod and downloaded nearly everything.Apart from some time variations of his unfullfilled prophesies, his explanation of the scriptures are nothing short of God-inspired.While I have not done so as yet I am commited to follow his teachings and seek baptism ,pay my tithes ,observe the sabbath and continue to listen to his sermons.Noah preached for 100 years and only his immediate family went into the Ark(someone recently claims to have located the remains),Jonah’s prediction of certain destruction was averted.If perchance God is behind him,what a terrible state will you be in?In any case the carnal mind cannot discern spiritual things.Why bother to follow his every word and seek to discredit him?Be warned!!!!!

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Burch, there are a couple of big differences.
    (1) In the story of Jonah, Nineveh repented. No such repentance has taken place in response to the failed prophecies of Ronald Weinland.
    (2) While Noah had triplet sons at the age of 500, and the flood happened when he was 600, nowhere does it say that he spent that entire 100 years building the ark. And nowhere does it say that he prophesied doom _at all_.

    There is no chance that God is behind him, read Deut 18:20-22. The “when” of his prophecies is just as important as his “what”. And his scriptural explanations are not novel, as they are essentially Armstrongism.

    Why do I bother? For the few who are interested in Weinland but who unlike you have the ability to see reason.

  • Atrocious says:

    “Burch 26/50 says:
    May 15, 2010 at 12:31

    About four years ago I was led by the spirit(those who seek ,shall find) to Ron’s web-site and books,I sent for both,bought an Ipod and downloaded nearly everything.Apart from some time variations of his unfullfilled prophesies, his explanation of the scriptures are nothing short of God-inspired.While I have not done so as yet I am commited to follow his teachings and seek baptism ,pay my tithes ,observe the sabbath and continue to listen to his sermons.Noah preached for 100 years and only his immediate family went into the Ark(someone recently claims to have located the remains),Jonah’s prediction of certain destruction was averted.If perchance God is behind him,what a terrible state will you be in?In any case the carnal mind cannot discern spiritual things.Why bother to follow his every word and seek to discredit him?Be warned!!!!!”

    The question is – led by WHAT spirit? “…Explanations of scriptures nothing short of God-inspired”? Which god? Why are you committed to follow Ron’s teachings? Why do you want to follow a man at all? If you are “led by the spirit” then you don’t need a man telling you what to believe, right? Yeah, pay your tithes? Why? He just takes them and squanders them for his own purposes, not God’s. “If perchance God is behind him…” Well, we have proven that God IS NOT behind him. God would never back a false prophet, a liar (an insane liar at that), and a charlatan.

    Wake up and smell the coffee before you commit your life to a man. You will be sorely disappointed when nothing happens as you think it will.

  • Mark says:

    “If perchance God is behind him,what a terrible state will you be in?”

    He’s not. On the authority of scripture, Ron Weinland is a heretic and false prophet.

    While you send him money and contemplate the end of the world, Ron and his wife are vacationing in Hawaii (he thanks you by the way) and setting up accounts around the world to abscond with. You are willingly giving and letting him do with that money as he wants to. Ron is more than willing to live off the backs of his milquetoast followers. Read my lips: Ron doesn’t give a dang about you. Never has. Never will. You are a means to an end for him. My foundation is on a Rock, yours is on sand. When you realize it, what a terrible state will you be in?

  • Atrocious says:

    Well put, Mark.

  • Kirrily Xpkg says:

    Burch, don’t forget to cancel your facebook account before you join – you’ll get extra brownie points. Once you join, we won’t here from you again (if u are obedient) as visiting blogs like this will get you disfellowshipped. You only posted what you did because of pride – pride being the fruit of pkg. You won’t see that now, but you will, when you crash and burn right along with Ron on Jesus non return in 2012.

    From experience, I KNOW what state you will be in.

  • Mal says:

    Mark,

    I also have my feet on solid Rock – Jesus Christ.

    But for me, there is much in ‘Armstrongism’ and also Ron Weinland’s preaching that makes more sense of God’s Word and the role of Jesus Christ than I have heard in ‘traditional Christianity’.

    For example, in my current ‘traditional Christianity’ church, those family members, friends and neighbours who don’t ‘get saved’ in this short life, will end up in eternal torment. This tends to make many Christians worried sick for the ultimate destiny of loved ones. One also wonders about the justice surrounding the little Moslem kid who dies in a psunami never having got anywhere near a chance to ‘get saved’.

    Ron Weinland portrays a far more loving God who has a salvation plan which works in stages. We don’t all make it through the events of the tribulation (which incidentally are brought on by mankind not God) and into the ‘Millenium’, when Christ returns. But there is another opportunity, a second resurrection at the end of the Millenium, when billions will get another chance to reject Satan’s ways and go God’s way. There is no eternal torment, only eternal death.

    For me, Ron Weinland’s theology is far more like the plan and actions of a loving God.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Mal, there are hundreds of Armstrongite splinters that believe all that stuff. Among all those hundreds, what makes you choose Weinland?

  • Mal says:

    Mike,

    Ron Weinland and PKG are the only splinter I know of that have come up with complex timelines that fit with Scripture and God’s Festivals. Also I find it interesting how he fits the history of WCOG and PKG with Scripture. For example, his claim that Joe Tkach (who decimated the WCOG) was the ‘man of sin’ of 2Thess 2:3,4. Correct me if I’m wrong, but no other splinters share any of these ideas with PKG do they?

    I know all the arguments against him due to him changing the timelines. I still find it thought provoking that his revised timelines, which seem to fit so well with Scripture and God’s festivals, are unique to the year of his book ‘2008’. I have personally checked, and there is no other year but 2008 where these fits occur (at least to the end of this century). Most interesting to me is that the revised timelines, which are quite complex, appeared AFTER he wrote his book. It would surely have been far easier to promote his book if he already had the complex numerical fits? Note that although the timeline was changed when these fits ‘appeared’, ‘2008’ has never changed.

    I also know all the arguments surrounding Deut 18:20-22. I don’t have an answer for that. Yes, it does ring alarm bells, but I’m prepared to watch world events another few months. I’m someone who believes in the tribulation occurring at ‘6000 years’ leading to the return of Christ, so I believe it is not unreasonable to be watchful at our time in history.

    Finally, I find RW to be scholarly, coherent and interesting in his expounding of Scripture, although I’m well aware that you and most others hold the opposite view.

  • Kirrily Xpkg says:

    Hi Mal, so the revised timeline is complex – true. But why would another splinter have come up with it BEFORE Ron? Mike also announced it before Ron.

    Remember too, that Ron went to GREAT length to state during FIRST timeline that GOD gave it, that it could NOT be worked out. Then suddenly when it failed, he changed his story and said that he HAD worked it out. The whole time I was in PKG all this sort of game playing was going on. Talk about flip flopping. I don’t know if you can even count how many changes to the second timeline there has been….

    Ron said NOW (as at 2008) God was going to begin to reveal himself POWERFULLY so to the WORLD by ensuring that events would come to pass EXACTLY as stated by Ron.

    So we have a first failed timeline, a second timeline that at least 2 other people came up with first, and constant revisions to the second timeline, IRS investigation, no 1/3 grass destroyed and many deaths from the first trumpet (as GFW states would happen, but then after failure Ronnie said it was spiritual, thereby making the book a lie as it said things were to happen EXACTLY as written) and on and on and on.

    This is the way God is revealing himself powerfully to the world ha? Mmmm

  • JA says:

    Don’t Gerald and Stephen Flurry consider Tkach the man of sin?? My mother is entrenched in that and has not spoken to my brother and I for going on 5 years now because we would not denounce our faith and return under Flurry’s authority and baptism. It has torn our whole family asunder.

  • Mal says:

    Hi Kirrily,

    You make good points. I certainly don’t have all the answers. Suffice it to say that for the reasons I stated, I remain interested a few months longer.

    Just one comment on your post though. To my knowledge only one small part of RW’s timeline was announced prior to RW announcing it. That was the 1335 day timespan of Daniel 12, from Trumpets 2008 to Pentecost 2012. None of the other splinters have come up with the complex numerology built around the number 280 (40 x 7). That also just happens to be the same timespan (40 sabbaths) to the time that Joe Tkach (the supposed ‘man of sin’) was ‘judged’.

    Even if the 1335 timespan was announced before RW announced it, it does not alter the fact that it is there and that it fits precisely within those two festivals. Because God’s festivals move around the calendar from year to year, the mathematical odds against that one timespan alone occurring based on ‘2008’ is 18:1 against.

    I would also be interested to know the answer to JA’s point ie. Does Gerald Flurry consider Tkach to be the ‘man of sin’ ?

  • Debbie says:

    Burch said “Why bother to follow his every word and seek to discredit him?Be warned!!!!!”

    Because it is Ronald’s own words & actions that bring him discredit – The things posted by Mike are factual – There is no twisting or distorting happening here – This article is about Ronald Weinland setting up a Swiss Bank Account in his own name – Mike has added Ronald’s own words to substantiate the facts – As far as the comments are concerned – each person is expressing their own opinion/idea/experience about the situation

    Unfortunately, some people choose to resist factual truth in order to preserve their beliefs in what serves them and meets their needs. Personally, I see these people living their lives motivated by fear – constantly looking for some terrible events to take place so that they can say it “fits” – So sad – It’s their life and their choices

    Several of us here have had direct involvement with Ronald Weinland and we share our experiences to ‘enlighten’ those who may be presently mystified by him

    Interesting of note – neither Burch nor Mal have ‘taken the Pkg plunge’ as yet – probably due to doubts in some part of themselves – yet they come here and present their points of view – I see that as a good thing – ‘cuz they are still questioning –

    Mal stated “I know all the arguments against him due to him changing the timelines”, and “I also know all the arguments surrounding Deut 18:20-22” – the defensiveness is right up front –

    It is difficult for someone to be presented with truthful facts when they think they already know differently

  • Steve says:

    “If perchance God is behind him,what a terrible state will you be in?In any case the carnal mind cannot discern spiritual things.Why bother to follow his every word and seek to discredit him?Be warned!!!!!”

    So if Ron was the true prophet this would mean God is an insane liar, uses proven false prophets to play with peoples heads, a deceiver, corrupt, author of confusion, illogical, unfair, unreasonable, completely impractical, contradicts his own word, and has an IQ of perhaps 70-90 ….and you are thus sayin (it seems) that “who cares” because it is a more powerful being than us mere mortals and so we should bow down to such (even when knowing all the above)….cowardice talk….hang on…….you might well be in the right cult after all…Ron might even make you an elder.

  • Aggie says:

    “For example, in my current ‘traditional Christianity’ church, those family members, friends and neighbours who don’t ‘get saved’ in this short life, will end up in eternal torment. “

    That’s because neither option, Christianity, OR Armstrongism, are acceptable to anyone with even a modicum of common sense.

    And please, Mal, spare us the “Armstrong’s followers are/were the One True Christians” crap. The church was a cross between Messianic Judaism, with a little bit of Christian Identity, Adventism, and a dash of false prophecy thrown in, for good measure. That world is gone, now, and nothing any of the splinter leaders (of ANY of the groups) do or say, is ever going to bring the church “back”; the only thing that might (and it’s a pretty big if), is if the next Pastor General appointed after Tkach Jr. either passes on the leadership after he retires, or passes on “beyond this vale of tears”, decides to “bring the church back to the truth”. Even then, whoever does that, is going to have an awful lot to answer for, for all the terrible things the church and its Apostle did, during WCG’s peak.

    In short, the church doesn’t exist anymore, and all these splinters (Weinland’s among them) are just playing church, trying desperately to hang onto a reality they are no longer a part of.

  • RK says:

    Mal,
    I have a question for you.

    You said in a previous comment to Kirrily, “You make good points. I certainly don’t have all the answers. Suffice it to say that for the reasons I stated, I remain interested a few months longer”.

    Your comment says that you have a point at which you will see Ron Weinland as being false. And that point looks like future failed prophecy.

    So my question is, what’s the difference in future failed prophecy by Ron and all of the past failed prophecies that Ron has given?

  • Mark says:

    “For example, in my current ‘traditional Christianity’ church, those family members, friends and neighbours who don’t ‘get saved’ in this short life, will end up in eternal torment.”
    “For me, Ron Weinland’s theology is far more like the plan and actions of a loving God.”

    It sounds to me like the real appeal is that you are part of a special camp God has specifically chosen. How would you feel if God were actually working with 1/3 to 1/2 of the world’s population (maybe more)? Would you feel less special? Maybe hard to take that God loves more than a few hundred to a couple thousand PKG church members?

  • Mal says:

    RK,

    My thinking is that perhaps God is working in ways we (or RW for that matter) do not yet fully understand. Maybe RW has part of the picture but not all ?

    Progressive revelation has occurred through Biblical history, so maybe it still holds good now ?

    Part of Ron Weinland’s timelines are connected with the odd sounding end-times expression ‘time, times and half a time’ given in Daniel 12:7. What reason did God have to use that particular expression ? Some kind of partitioning/buildup of end-time events perhaps?

    God also told us in Scripture (Mark 13:20) that he would ‘shorten’ the time of tribulation. What did God mean by that? Perhaps it could be interpreted that it was originally to be longer.

    RW claims that God is using a timespan of 280 days (40×7) as an expression for end-times ‘judgement’. J Tkach (the supposed ‘man of sin’ of 2 Thess2:3,4) died exactly 40×7 days after giving his sermon that tore down the doctrines of WCOG, including that God’s Sabbath and God’s Festivals were no longer important.

    RW further claims that God has revealed to him that a ‘time’ in the expression ‘time, times and half a time’ is that same timespan of 280 days. So ‘time, times and half a time’ equates to 980 days, which also happens to fit between two of God’s Festivals and finishes at Pentecost 2012.

    A compression of the timescales for his thunders and trumpets, although seemingly improbable, might just be possible. Time will very soon tell.

  • Mal says:

    Mark

    I am not part of any ‘special camp’. I am a believer in Jesus Christ and trust in Him for my salvation.

    I don’t find the theology of my own ‘traditional’ church, that my non-believing family members who don’t ‘accept Christ’ in this short life will end up in eternal torment, to be the actions of a loving God.

    Ron Weinland’s theology is that God’s salvation plan works in stages, and billions get another chance at the second resurrection after the ‘Millenium’. This makes more sense to me.

  • Burch says:

    I am glad that in response to an urging, I did put my “two cents” in before R.W’s timely sabbath message.That my”‘two cents” did provide some food for thought is heart warming.
    We progress according to the “given light”. that we accept. May God continue to open our spiritual understanding as we strive to worship him in “spirit and in truth”.Peace and love.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Burch, you’re going to have to spell it out for us. To whom was your food for thought provided? And how was it timely with respect to Ronnie’s latest rantin’?

  • angel says:

    Mal,

    I hate to burst your bubble, but you don’t have your feet on solid rock; they’re on the extremely unstable ground of Weinlandism, and in case you hadn’t noticed, it’s sinking rapidly. Your trust is not in Jesus Christ but in the false teachings/prophecies of Ronald Weinland.

    Ron portrays the god of his imagination, not the God described in scripture. If I were an atheist, the eternal consequences of rejecting God as taught by Ron would not alarm me in the least; we all have to die anyway so once that happens the punishment I would face is…..nothing. There are a lot of people in so much pain or inner turmoil in this life that all they want to do is end it so they can have some peace – believing there’s nothing beyond the grave. Ceasing to exist, second chances after death, is not taught in scripture; Ron is teaching things that give people a false hope. We have the truth now, so there’s no reason for anyone who has heard the truth and rejected it to get a second chance; those who were unable to hear, because of age, mental capacity or circumstances, will be directly dealt with by God because He’s not willing that any should perish; He’s a fair God. Believe what you want, but to be punished for committing a crime is just; to experience nothing for committing a crime is unjust, IMO.

    I’m not “worried sick” about the ultimate destiny of my loves ones because, first of all, it wouldn’t help; second, each person must make their own choice what to believe. I’m concerned because of my love for them, not worried, because it’s not my job to save them, only to be a witness of what God has done for me. If you lack concern for your loved ones, whether about what happens to them in this life or the next, that’s unbiblical because we’re told to love one another. Lack of love is often the prideful result of thinking you’re better than others because you’re working for your salvation.

    This is a fact: if God is omniscient, as He claims, then He is NEVER, EVER WRONG. PERIOD. Nor does He lie to tempt us to sin. Ron has ALREADY proven he doesn’t speak for God. His version of god doesn’t know the future because his god doesn’t exist.

    As usual, when you don’t like remarks that question Ron’s behavior – in this case how he’s taking his churches money out of the country and stashing it in a bank where they will never have access to it if something happens to him – you fall back on other issues that don’t have anything to do with that. Not everyone posting here is a Christian, so they don’t really care if you don’t agree with “traditional Christianity”. If you must defend Ron, you’d do better to stay on topic.

    Let me ask you this: if you became a member of Ron’s church (God forbid!), started giving tithe(s) – that’s plural, and after having sacrificed much, saw little growth in his church and then something happened to him, or he disappeared because his prophecies continued to fail and he ran from having to answer for it – how would you feel, knowing your money is gone – either locked up in a Swiss bank or ripped off by a false prophet. I see that you don’t have enough confidence in him to actually send him a check so you can be baptized and join his church; he didn’t keep his word about ending his ministry if his prophecies failed; why would you trust him, not only with your money, but with your soul?

  • Steve says:

    Mal you said “J Tkach (the supposed ‘man of sin’ of 2 Thess2:3,4) died exactly 40×7 days after giving his sermon that tore down the doctrines of WCOG, including that God’s Sabbath and God’s Festivals were no longer important”

    Well the main point is Mal that you should remember what the bible says about the new testament charachter of God…and that is that you are not under the law anymore and that goes for “being punished” when you do wrong…God doesnt punish anymore, if you believe the new testament (not until judgement day anyway)….if he did then how would his followers be “under grace”? and why does he choose to not punish all the rapists, murderers etc etc and all the other christians who commit adultery and sexual abuse of kids and who knows what else….think about it.

  • Steve says:

    Oh yeah God punishes in the tribulation too (if you believe in that)…forgot to mention that…but regular life such as during the time of Tkach….no

  • Mal says:

    Hi angel

    Modern ‘Christianity’ is riddled with confusion, so many different churches with different names and interpretations of Scripture. At the end of the day, truth is truth, they can’t all have it right.

    The one thing that is certain and sure, and on which we can stand, is our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of Almighty God . He is the captain of our salvation and will not let us out of His hand.

    How we each interpret the complex nature of Scripture is between us and God. As far as I’m concerned, if we put our trust in the Rock, then ultimately all truth will be revealed to each one of us. God’s goal is that all who stand on the Rock will get to ‘the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ ‘(Eph 4:13). For most of us, that won’t be in this short life, it will be ongoing.

    Meanwhile, whether I choose to examine the theology of Wesley, Calvin, Luther, the Pope, Weinland or whoever else, is between me and God. You don’t need to concern yourself with it. Similarly, whatever preachers you listen to and how you choose to interpret Scripture is between you and God.

    One way or another, through Christ and the Holy Spirit, you and me and all who put their trust in Him will eventually get there.

    Regarding the tithe money, the issue with the IRS and all the other criticisms levelled at RW, God knows the true nature of his heart, whether it is honourable or not. Rest assured that God will discipline or reward him as appropriate.

  • Mark says:

    Mal,

    I believe you when you say you have your feet on the firm foundation of the Rock. Why would you want to give that up? It appears that you haven’t made any commitment to RW, but are part of a “traditional” church and reading/exploring Ron’s teachings.
    Prophecy is intruiging and addicting. It’s what kept a lot of followers obeying Herbert W. Armstrong, from which Ron Weinland comes from. The thing is, I spent the first 28 years of my life in Armstrong’s cult and finally was able to break free of it when I learned who the Rock really is and what the scriptures really say about grace and faith versus works. I urge you to really study, not prophecy, timelines, or even his version of eternal punishment Focus on who he says Jesus is. By the way- the church that Tkach, aka “man of sin”, leads today (WCG/Grace Communion) also believes in “second-chance” salvation.

    Cults have a couple things in common. First, they do not believe that Jesus is God. Ron doesn’t. Ron says Jesus was a created being. Ron believes in two gods and that you will become god as well- co-equal with God.
    Second, cults are high demand. You have a list of things that you must perform in order to be in the special group. Violating any one of these rules are grounds for immediate dismissal and you are marked as having lost your salvation. This again minimizes/trivializes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Eph. 2
    I encourage you to talk to the pastor of your current church about Ron’s teachings. You seem to be well schooled in Theology. Let someone else who is also schooled in Theology talk with you and explain more than a blog posting can.
    Blessings to you brother in Christ.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Mark, a particular theological belief or non-belief is not what defines a cult. The high demand part and believing that Weinland has unique spiritual insight do.

    Mal, you say that God will reward or punish Weinland depending on which is appropriate. I don’t think so. Weinland’s spiritual idol Herbert Armstrong prophesied falsely for years, yet he didn’t meet the Deut 18: 20-22 punishment — instead he died an old man in the mansion paid for by his followers.

    To suggest exclusively God’s to decide what is in a man’s heart is wrong. We each have to make our best estimate of that every day as we go through life, to do otherwise is gullibility. Let’s get off the preaching and back on topic which includes our figuring out what Weinland may have in his heart.

    I think that Ron Weinland is the first person deluded by Ron Weinland. But he’s not adverse to living well on his followers’ tithes, because after all he is God’s prophet and everything is God’s. Besides which Herbert Armstrong taught quality — for himself, that is. Certainly not for my family clothed out of garage sales so my father could send in extra money to support “the work”.

  • Steve says:

    Mark you said;
    “Cults have a couple things in common. First, they do not believe that Jesus is God”

    To be fair…the subject of if Jesus is god or the son of god (or both) is highly debateable and it is not a sign of a cult, just a sign that people interpret scripture differently…it doesnt say you have to be a scholar to enter heaven…and so if one has to figure out if Jesus was god or the son of god etc, then that would be very unfair lol because like i say, it is very hard to tell what the bible says on this subject as there is good argument for both sides.
    Just food for thought

  • Atrocious says:

    Mal said: “Regarding the tithe money, the issue with the IRS and all the other criticisms levelled at RW, God knows the true nature of his heart, whether it is honourable or not. Rest assured that God will discipline or reward him as appropriate.”

    So, in your view, no one is to say anything against Ron because only God knows the true nature of his heart? Whatever happened to “you shall know them by their fruits” and “prove all things…” Ron’s fruits are not ANY of the fruits of the spirit, quite the opposite. His actions show his heart, Mal. We are to make wise choices based on what we know, what we see, what we hear, and when we know, see, and hear what Ron Weinland is doing to his followers, we make it public so people like you don’t fall into his snare.

    God knows the heart of pedophiles and serial killers, too, but they spend their time hurting people. If you saw a pedophile molest a child, wouldn’t you take action, or would you just let him continue molesting children because “only God knows his heart”? If you knew of a serial killer, would you just let him continue killing “because only God knows his heart”?

    It has been proven over and over and over again that Ron is a false prophet, a liar, a thief, delusional, and he elevates himself to the same level as his god. He has hurt many, many people with his teachings and demands, psychological and emotional abuse. Yet, “only God knows the true nature of his heart?”

    Ok, so you make your choices. At least make them with more information about the man under your hat.

  • RK says:

    Hi Mal,

    Thanks for your answer.

    Do me (us) a favor.

    When the time comes that you see Ron Weinland as being false (and I, we believe you will) please come onto this blog and tell everybody what the turning point was for you.

    It would be interesting, as well as enlightening, and maybe even helpful for other PKG members, for you to do so.

  • angel says:

    Mal,

    I’ve heard all about what you think of “traditional Christianity”, but you keep bringing it up; here’s the thing – this blog isn’t about that, is it? Mike is talking about Ron and PKG, so why don’t we stay on topic?

    In regard to Ron’s character and the true nature of his heart; he began revealing that when he lied about stepping down from ministry if his predictions failed – there was no humility in the way he defended himself after that and refused to repent; no honor in the way he blamed God for his failure to accurately prophesy. He showed what was in his heart when he rebuked his followers for doubting him, and for believing the events he had previously stated would be obvious to all the world were supposed to be physical. He showed it when he told his church he was taking their money and putting it in his own name, and that THEY needed to rely on God.

    I believe that God will ultimately discipline (not reward) Ron for his actions; but we may not see it in this life. All we can do is shine a light on him; if you choose to close your eyes that’s up to you.

  • Atrocious says:

    Hi Angel,
    Thank you for clarifying. You itemized, where I generalized. You said exactly what I was trying to say.

  • angel says:

    Atrocious,

    You know what they say about great minds…. 🙂

  • Mark says:

    Mike said:
    “Mark, a particular theological belief or non-belief is not what defines a cult. The high demand part and believing that Weinland has unique spiritual insight do.”

    There are many definitions of cults. My definition, which is shared by most Christian watchdogs include “Christian” groups which reject key historical Christian doctrines.

    Steve said:
    “To be fair…the subject of if Jesus is god or the son of god (or both) is highly debateable and it is not a sign of a cult, just a sign that people interpret scripture differently.”

    I will only say this. If Weinland had even a glimpse of understanding of Jesus and the gospel, fully put his faith in the saving power of the cross, then he wouldn’t be the subject of this blog.
    Jesus is the great dividing line between Christians and non-Christians; Christian groups and cults.

  • Aggie says:

    “What reason did God have to use that particular expression”

    “God” didn’t; that’s just the KJV translation assigned to it by men; the original Judaic council that approved the early Old Testament “scriptures” (around the 4th century), thought Daniel was a nutter, not even worthy of being canonized!

    Somehow, I think things would have been very different, if Constantine and Eusebius had agreed……

  • Aggie says:

    “Modern ‘Christianity’ is riddled with confusion, so many different churches with different names and interpretations of Scripture. At the end of the day, truth is truth, they can’t all have it right.”

    That’s because Christianity is just as false as Armstrongism. It’s very simple.

  • Mark says:

    “That’s because Christianity is just as false as Armstrongism. It’s very simple.”

    It’s not that simple Aggie.

    I am actually OK with some ambiguity. I have my opinion on divine election and salvation, but it isn’t a primary matter of faith for me. I also have opinions about prophecy, but it isn’t a primary matter of faith for me. We can disagree on some interpretations of scripture- i.e. tithing, but we must agree on the fundamentals. That’s why creeds were written centuries ago. The nicean creed outlines articles of faith. I repeat Creed of 381 every week. (just a note if you look it up- catholic is little “c” meaning church universal, not Catholic with big “C” meaning the Roman Catholic church.)

  • Matt says:

    I think the key difference between the weinlandism cult more mainstream religions is the isolating, inward facing aspects of weinlandism. It actively sets out to immunize it’s members against main stream common sense, it makes huge demands on them, and uses practices like disfellowshipping to keep the flock in line. It demonizes the outside world and is more concerned with itself than with any goals in the outside world. All these things make it a cult, and a fairly disruptive one to the lives of the people that get involved with it, as we have all seen. Ron clearly believes that his church is more important than his followers.

    Ron’s doctrines change to accommodate his own needs as leader of the cult, and do not seem to have a lot to do with reality.

  • Atrocious says:

    “Ron clearly believes that his church is more important than his followers.”

    No – Ron clearly believes the HE is more important than his followers. The money is in HIS name, not the church’s name. The flock, in my opinion, is not even a church, unless, of course, you want to name it THE CHURCH OF RON because, in my opinion, they don’t worship God, they worship god-Ron. They obey his every whim, think that whatever comes out of his mouth is truth, and every action he takes is ordained by god-Ron. They sacrifice to their god-Ron till they are destitute while HE lives in the lap of luxury and travels all over the world.

    It’s disgusting, deplorable, and downright dehumanizing.

  • Matt says:

    Well, thats another culty thing isn’t it – the needs of the cult are the needs of the cult leadership. But you cant say that as people will see you as the power-hungry person you are, so you say that things are done int he name of the cult, while really they are for the benefit of the cult leadership.

    There is no real distinction – Ron has a direct line to god, so ron decides what gods will is. The fact that this neatly coincides with what is best for Rons is ignored.

  • Mal says:

    Regarding the question of why would God use the odd sounding end-times expression “time,times and a half” in Daniel 12:7 ?

    Aggie replied:

    “God” didn’t; that’s just the KJV translation assigned to it by men; the original Judaic council that approved the early Old Testament “scriptures” (around the 4th century), thought Daniel was a nutter, not even worthy of being canonized!”

    1. All ten english Bible versions I have looked at give that same or virtually identical translation.

    2. The Hebrew words in the Hebrew Old Testament say the same thing.

    3. Jesus Himself validated Daniel the Prophet in Mark 13:14.

  • angel says:

    Mal,

    I agree with your comments regarding the expression “time, times and half a time” in the book of Daniel, but you do understand where Aggie was coming from, right? Atheists don’t believe the Bible is inspired by God, and they’re often very willing to believe anyone or any book that argues with its veracity.

    I wanted to weigh in on your side, on this issue at least, so you don’t think I’m just trying to beat you up all the time – it just drives me a little bit crazy that you’re unwilling to face facts where Ron is concerned.

  • Aggie says:

    “I will only say this. If Weinland had even a glimpse of understanding of Jesus and the gospel, fully put his faith in the saving power of the cross, then he wouldn’t be the subject of this blog.
    Jesus is the great dividing line between Christians and non-Christians; Christian groups and cults.”

    Which is why I maintain the church never was, and any of its splinter groups never will be, “Christian” as that term is understood today, in this world. We said we were “the only true Christians”, but the fact of the matter is, our theology, our practices, and our beliefs had absolutely zero commonality with “pagan” professing Christianity as it is know to this day.

    As for Angel and Mark, Mark, I don’t really want to bother with looking up the hair-splitting differences between all the thousands of flavours of professing Christianity. It still makes my head spin. (See the latest discussion on some weird Christian holy day called “Ascension” over on Otagosh, for instance.) The fact that you spew some words out once a week doesn’t make you any more or less holy than I am, pal. And I’m sure you’ll agree I’m the furthest thing from “holy”!

    As for you, Angel, most biblical scholars worth their salt, agree that the canonical Christian texts are entirely made of, by, and for, men. Christian biblical scholars even know this to be true! The fact that you can’t see past your own blind faith to recognize this, is a failing of the in-built requirements of Romanized Christianity, that was instigated largely so the Emperor Constantine (and the one a little bit before as well, IIRC; Diocletian?) could retain a semblance of crowd-control over their rapidly-crumbling empire. You are not to be “saved” by believing a man lived and died long ago at Jerusalem…that’s only what you have been indoctrinated to believe.

    Thing of it is, Christianity IS based on observance of the circuit of the sun through the sky over the course of the solar year; where the church (WCG) got it all wrong was, there’s nothing wrong with that! And where the Romanized Christianity gets it all wrong, is they deny this fact, and insist on literalized versions, of stories that always were, and were always only ever meant to be, pure allegories.

    And that’s it, I’m done. Bad enough I’m arguing with the now-fundie ex-members of WCG over on The Painful Truth; we’re here to talk about Ronald Weinland’s many failed, and failing prophecies, not debate the validity or non of Christian theology. If I haven’t demonstrated it clearly enough already, Christianity and Armstrongism are like chalk and cheese; and this blog has zero to do with Christianity, and everything to do with a non-Christian splinter sect of the proudly non-(professing)Christian Armstrongism.

    Unless Angel and Mark are just hanging around these blogs to try and poach souls for Jebus? That’s not very compassionate at all, now is it?

  • angel says:

    Come on now, Aggie, lighten up – if you’re gonna dish it you should be able to take it; no reason we can’t have a friendly discussion :-). About Ron, anyway.

    I’m not interested in having a theological discussion with you, either, which is why I never address any such comments directly to you; when it comes to spiritual issues we speak different languages.

    Peace!

  • angel says:

    Something I would like to point out to you, Aggie, is that there’s a difference between “preaching” and expressing an opinion. Mike understands that, but you don’t seem to be as open-minded as he is. Here’s how I see it: if talking about what you believe is preaching, then everyone here is doing it. I’m not telling you or anyone else here what to believe. And like you, I wouldn’t let you or anyone else here tell me what I have to believe.

    I’m here to put in my two cents about Ron: I think he’s an insane, lying, false prophet, and I’m betting you agree with me on that, if nothing else.

  • Mal says:

    “if talking about what you believe is preaching, then everyone here is doing it.”

    I’ll weigh in on your side with that comment, angel.

    I can understand where Aggie is coming from with his atheistic comments, as I know some of his WCOG background from this blog.

    J Tkach snr turned the WCOG on it’s head, bringing utter confusion and splintering the church into hundreds of pieces. No doubt many became atheists as a result. This is why I thought RW’s assertion that J Tkach snr was the ‘man of sin’ of 2Thess2, 3,4 was at least worthy of consideration.

    Incidentally, nobody has answered whether this idea is unique to RW or whether any other splinters believe it.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    I understand that Flurry has taught that Tkach was the man of sin. But why do you believe it? There is a better argument that someone else is the man of sin.

  • Whisper says:

    Writing as a non member, former or otherwise, of WCG or PKG I think the breakup of WCG by Tkach was a good thing. Armstrong was a horrible leader, spiritual or otherwise, and built a empire on the fear of others and there recognition of himself as the one and only safe path that they may follow to find God and Salvation. This was, from my opinion, disturbing.
    So along comes Tkach and “presto” he turns the church away from such horrible self centered concepts of $$, ego, and self glory to a more mainstream church of Christ where it is the CONGREGATION that is the center point and how THEY follow Jesus. Not about Tkach, not about the hierarchy, not about gaining $$ (if he wanted that he would have kept the empire Herb built and simply run it), not about self Ego & Glory… but about the church, and as we all should know it is the PEOPLE that are within the church that makes the church, not its minister or heirarchy etc…
    Good going Tkach! He splintered and empire to rid the earth of yet another selfishly constructed empire made of fear and rules.
    Tkach the man of sin? Hardly. Tkach the man of God is much closer to the truth. It must have been very hard indeed for him to do what was going to be very unpopular indeed to the zombie followers of dead Herby.
    But finished it he did. Lost a huge fraction of the following, faced much anger, faced much loss, faced loss of friends, but did it anyway. Takes a lot of guts to do all that in the face of such anger and rebellion.
    Mikes right, he has found a “man of sin” and Ron is it. Ron would re-build Herb’s empire in a hot second if he only could. Ron peddles fear and self doubt just like his dead idol did. Ron is greedy for $$ and glory just like Herb was. Ron is his fathers son, and if ever a MAN OF SIN was revealed then Herb would be such.

    Go figure?

  • Mal says:

    Whichever way we view it, good or bad, one thing for sure is that Mr J Tkach brought about something seismic in the WCOG.

    If God saw Mr Tkach as His true servant, it seems odd that God would reward him with an early painful death. And furthermore, that God would allow that death to take place precisely 40 Sabbaths after his crucial sermon. 40 being the number that God often uses in Scripture in the context of ‘judgement’.

    A crucial sermon that, amongst other things, demoted God’s Sabbath and God’s Festivals so as to be of little relevance.

    Herbert W Armstrong, on the other hand, died an old man.

  • angel says:

    Mal,

    John the Baptist died an early painful death (as did Jesus), too, so your logic doesn’t really work. John’s job was to make the way straight for Jesus; when that was done, his job was over – maybe that’s the way it was for Tkach, too. If his job was to dismantle what HWA had built, he did it then God took him home.

    No one knows for sure what the significance is of the timing of Tkach’s death; I could offer some suggestions, I’m sure lots of people could, but that’s all it would be. With his track record for accuracy I wouldn’t trust Ron to know what it is, that’s for sure. Although Tkach turned away from Armstrongism he led alot of people astray before he did that, so maybe his death should be looked at as the symbolic end of WWCOG, for, among other things, idolizing the sabbath.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    “Herbert W Armstrong, on the other hand, died an old man.”
    Exactly. Which proves the Bible is not the word of God, as Herbie prophesied falsely many times while claiming to represent God, yet he did not suffer the mandated punishment.

    Aside from that, there is no scripture linking 40 weeks to the son of perdition. And there is no scripture that shows that whomever comes up with that conclusion as being God’s representative.

  • angel says:

    Well, the mandated punishment for prophesying falsely was a command given to the Jews as part of their covenant with God, and that’s not something God expects the church to do. I think just like some people can live a healthy lifestyle and still die young, others can have unhealthy ones and live a long life.

    You’re right about there being no scripture linking 40 weeks to the son of perdition, and no good reason to believe anyone who comes up with that conclusion as being God’s representative. Particularly someone who’s failed to prophesy accurately.

  • angel says:

    To clarify my comment about healthy/unhealthy lifestyles, what I mean is how you live does not always have anything to do with why/when you die.

  • angel says:

    I’m still not sure I got my point across, so I’ll try one more time: I think there are alot of crusty old sinners out there, so it doesn’t make sense to think living a long life is always a sign that you’ve been living right, and that anyone that dies young must be a sinner.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Punishments for falsely prophesying are mentioned in two places. In Deut 18 it says that a false prophet should die, but it doesn’t give anyone a commission to carry that out. And in the last chapter of Revelation, it gives the penalty for adding or subtracting that the false prophet should suffer all of the Revelation plagues. So much for that.

  • angel says:

    Deut. chapter 13 speaks of prophets, dreamers of dreams and anyone who attempts to draw people away from God, saying they should be put to death, stoned by the hands of the Jews. In Deut. 18, it says the false prophet shall die, and while you are correct in saying that it doesn’t say who is responsible for carrying that out, it also doesn’t say when or how, or if the death is the “first” or “second” death spoken of in scripture. God sometimes did strike people dead immediately for breaking one of His laws, but not always. Although we may sometimes wish He would do that more often, maybe it’s better that He doesn’t – some of us here blogging might already have been casualties.

  • Aggie says:

    “God sometimes did strike people dead immediately for breaking one of His laws, but not always. Although we may sometimes wish He would do that more often, maybe it’s better that He doesn’t – some of us here blogging might already have been casualties.”

    What a loving Christian attitude, Angel.

  • Mark says:

    Aggie, if you want people to take you seriously, consider dialing down the hyper-sensitivity. Examples: Taking angel’s comments as if they were directed at you, or thinking that I was trying to one-up you in the holiness category by stating I recite a creed every week. Take up yoga or go for a run. Or, try going on a blog-fast. Give up all online blogging and commenting for one month. Join Meetup and find some like-minded people to enjoy an evening with.

  • Debbie says:

    From Mike’s post above regarding possible banking location of The Swiss Bank Account “Raiffeisenbank Weinland is located in Zürcher Weinland — I’ll let you ponder that for a bit.”

    What a coincidence that would be -From what I have researched, Weinland is a german name, so he is possibly an Assyrian descendant – (I think that is what the WCG used to teach – has been a long time) – So from a COG point of view, RW is therefore not from one of the “Lost Tribes” – Maybe on his mother’s side – RW must be a spiritual Israelite – but that is a different topic.

    Mal, you seem to put emphasis upon the specialness of ‘God’s Sabbath’ and ‘God’s Festivals’ in some of your posts relating to your interest in RW’s timelines –
    Do you personally observe these days & ‘set them apart’? How do you integrate these beliefs in your day to day living?

  • angel says:

    Aggie,

    I was including myself in that statement – just keeping it real because I’m sure all of us here have broken one or two of God’s laws, eh?

    I really do hope I have a loving Christian attitude, but if I slip, please let me know – and I mean that sincerely!

  • angel says:

    Oh, I guess you were talking about the wishing God would strike people dead more often; I was responding to Mike’s comment in a general way, maybe it didn’t come across right. I’m not a particularly violent person, but sometimes I do feel angry when I see someone like Ron hurting other people. Not angry enough to wish him dead, though.

  • Aggie says:

    “Taking angel’s comments as if they were directed at you, or thinking that I was trying to one-up you in the holiness category by stating I recite a creed every week.”

    That’s right, because I’m the one who’s wrong, just because there’s no evidence the god you worship exists. Think outside the box a little bit further, it’s really a vast and rich world, full of diversity out there. I was just pointing out how your insular comments are coming across, to me. But, then, my opinions aren’t worth a whole lot to you anyway (as Angel has even stated) simply because I have never been, and never will be, a thrall for your god…..

  • Aggie says:

    I’m interested in hearing an answer to Debbie’s questions from Mal, as well; also, Mal, which calendar do you use? Each splinter group has its own version, and the CoGs believe the Jews got their own calendar wrong (Read “God’s Sacred Calendar” some time if you don’t believe me); so, which of the 600+ “one true calendars” out there is right, Mal?

  • Aggie says:

    Oh and don’t forget this jaw-dropper of a quote from Weinland, ca. 2008:

    “Why would anyone want to use anyone in Judaism as an authority on Hebrew?”

  • Mark says:

    “That’s right, because I’m the one who’s wrong, just because there’s no evidence the god you worship exists.”

    I’m beginning to sense paranoia. Not good. I’ll leave your comments alone from now on.

  • Mal says:

    Hi Debbie (and Aggie),

    I am currently officially a member of a ‘traditional’ Christian church, but do not participate in Sunday worship. I acknowledge God’s Sabbath privately.

    Similarly, I acknowledge God’s true Holy Days privately, having recognised that Christmas and Easter are only a Christian veneer placed on pagan holidays. My understanding from Scripture is that God hates mixture.

    God’s Sabbath and Holy Days are a beautiful picture and packed with meaning about God’s Salvation Plan, but are largely ignored by ‘traditional’ Christianity, including my own church. The Old Testament Holy Days are all about Christ, what has already taken place and what is to come in the future. For example, Jesus died exactly at ‘Passover’, was resurrected and accepted by the Father exactly at ‘Firstfruits’ and the Holy Spirit came on the disciples exactly at ‘Pentecost’. It stands to reason that the remainder of God’s salvation plan, including the return of Christ, will similarly be linked with God’s Festivals.

    There is some debate as to which dates are correct on today’s calendar. I’m prepared to believe that, first and foremost, it’s the right ‘attitude’ God is looking for. In other words, does the ‘created’ acknowledge the Festivals the Creator gave us, or does the ‘created’ effectively tell the Creator that we will ignore His Festivals and instead come before Him when we choose to do so.

    I’m quite happy to believe that God is willing to accept the current Jewish calendar, since at our time in history that is the benchmark and the one we can access easiest.

    God is not a tyrant with a big stick, looking for us to fulfil a list of rules and regulations, but a God who delights to meet with His people on His Holy Days and to study and understand the symbolism behind them. After all, Jesus said ‘The Sabbath was made for man……’ He followed it up by saying ’…and not man for the Sabbath’ because the Pharisees had introduced a number of ridiculous rules of their own.

  • Mal says:

    angel, you said:

    “John the Baptist died an early painful death (as did Jesus), too, so your logic doesn’t really work.”

    I don’t see those examples as like-for-like with Mr Tkach.

    Jesus and John the Baptist both died at the hands of evil men, as did other servants of God including the Old Testament prophets and all 12 of the disciples (except John, who died an old man).

    I could better envisage that Mr Tkach fell foul of one of the curses in Deut 28. The fact that his death occurred exactly 40 Sabbaths later seems more than a coincidence..

  • angel says:

    Aggie,

    Your feelings and opinions are just as important as anyone else’s here; we just have opposite points of view. You think our view is insular, apparently because we don’t embrace the concept of diversity; but these are diametrically opposed ideas that simply cannot be reconciled. You feel that we see you as being “the one who’s wrong”; but don’t you also see us as being wrong? You don’t miss many opportunities to let us know how you feel about us; is that part of thinking outside the box and accepting a wider spectrum of beliefs as having validity?

    Besides Christianity and Weinlandism, what other beliefs do you reject as being too narrow-minded?

    Personally I don’t see the point in demanding that Christians offer proof of their God if the same proof isn’t demanded of every other belief system out there, and that includes atheism. If you’re going to take a stand and insist you know for a fact there’s no God, you should be able to prove it if you’re going to expect someone else to prove their belief is true. It’s only fair.

    If you reject Christianity and the Bible for lack of proof, shouldn’t you also reject any other belief that can’t offer proof? From what I can see, faith is an integral part of every belief system, even atheism, so your willingness to accept any belief depends on what kind and how much evidence/proof you want.

    Fact is, neither one of us can prove what we believe; we can only offer the best evidence we know of. So why is there a need to be unpleasant to each other over this? I’m not upset with you because you think I’m wrong; why the need to be upset with me because I think you are?

  • angel says:

    Mal,

    I don’t necessarily think the timing of Tkach’s death is a coincidence, I just don’t think Ron, or anyone else for that matter, knows the reason for it. And I certainly don’t think its grounds for believing he’s the man of sin, especially for the reasons Ron thinks he is.

    The Bible doesn’t present false prophets as good men; so for someone like Ron to judge and condemn Tkach, well, sorry but that doesn’t work for me. I don’t take anything Ron says seriously, particularly as he’s been wrong about so many things already.

    I understand some people have their reasons for not liking the man, I don’t know much about him so I don’t have much of an opinion; but I think it’s a horrible thing to make such a serious accusation against someone based on the teachings of a false prophet. I mean, man of sin? Come on, you might as well call him the devil himself!

    I’ll tell you right now – I don’t know the reason why Tkach died when he did – period. And I don’t believe you do either.

  • Debbie says:

    Thank you for your answer, Mal – Yes, the examples you have stated are interesting coincidences

    From where did you learn about Sabbath & Festival Days? Was it from literature & information from HWA and WWCG?

    When you say you acknowledge these days – Just how do you set them apart? On Passover do you do your own thing with Unleavened Bread & Wine? What about FootWashing?

    Sabbath is Saturday & Pentecost is Sunday which may or may not interfere with your employment – What about the Day of Atonement? – Do you stay home from work & fast? and what do you do during the Feast of Tabernacles? Do you work on these days? How do you observe them? Who do you present your offerings to?

    I am trying to get an understanding of just how informed and how involved you are in these things – Thanks for your help!

  • Aggie says:

    “There is some debate as to which dates are correct on today’s calendar. I’m prepared to believe that, first and foremost, it’s the right ‘attitude’ God is looking for. In other words, does the ‘created’ acknowledge the Festivals the Creator gave us, or does the ‘created’ effectively tell the Creator that we will ignore His Festivals and instead come before Him when we choose to do so.

    I’m quite happy to believe that God is willing to accept the current Jewish calendar, since at our time in history that is the benchmark and the one we can access easiest.

    God is not a tyrant with a big stick, looking for us to fulfil a list of rules and regulations….”

    Mal,

    You are in direct opposition to the Church of God splinter groups’ theology, understanding, and core beliefs, with everything that you have written above. Were you to admit any of the above to a Church of God minister, you would quite quickly be told that you did not have the right attitude, and that you would have to “study further”.

    Knowing that your core beliefs (as I assume what you have stated above are your core beliefs) are in such direct opposition/anathema to Armstrongite/Weinlandish teachings, why do you continue to persist in a defending a church that you are not only not a member of, you would not be accepted for membership in, because your views are antithetical to their own?

  • Aggie says:

    “If you’re going to take a stand and insist you know for a fact there’s no God, you should be able to prove it”

    God did not stop the Tkaches from changing everything “His” “one true church” believed in, stood for, and accomplished.

    How’s that for evidence? Seems pretty solid to me. But, if you want a non-Armstrongite example, how about the old fundie atheist saw, “Why doesn’t God heal amputees?”

    That’ll do, for a start, I think.

  • Aggie says:

    “Exactly. Which proves the Bible is not the word of God, as Herbie prophesied falsely many times while claiming to represent God, yet he did not suffer the mandated punishment.”

    So, “Angel”, you’re jumping all over me because I’m asking for evidence that your god is true for anyone else but you, yet you let this remark of Mike’s just slide right on by? What gives?

  • Mal says:

    Ok Debbie, I guess I see where you’re coming from.

    But firstly, I’m surprised you only use the term ‘interesting coincidences’, if you’re speaking of the references to ‘Passover’ ‘Firstfruits’ and ‘Pentecost’. Personally, I would use a term more like ‘mindblowing’, to think that these Old Testament Festivals were fulfilled in such a way by Jesus Christ.

    To be honest, I never heard of HWA or WWCG until about 2 years ago.

    Over the past several years I attended a Bible School where I had the 7000 year plan of God explained to me and how it was connected with the Sabbath and God’s Festivals. I was told it was known to the ancient Jewish rabbis. It was also known to the early church. So it is certainly not something that HWA dreamed up. It has been a source of frustration to me that the ‘traditional’ Christian churches I have been involved with have never taken much interest.

    Yes, I have managed to find Passover celebrations to participate in with unleavened bread and wine over the years (not every year). Again, I have occasionally participated in Tabernacles celebrations along with the symbolism of building a booth. I am fortunate that I have never had a problem with Saturday Sabbath clashing with work.

    My belief is that God does want us to acknowledge and participate in His Festivals, but for them to be a source of joy, because they are about our salvation. He wants us to understand how they relate to Christ in their symbolism.

    My own opinion is that our amount of participation in them should be as much as we are willing and able. It should be between the individual and God how much or how little that is. Undue pressure regarding the level of participation exerted by one human being onto another would be out of order, and I guess that is where you (and Aggie) are coming from.

  • angel says:

    Aggie,

    “God did not stop the Tkaches from changing everything “His” “one true church” believed in, stood for, and accomplished.”

    First of all, WWCOG wasn’t God’s “one true church”, and why would anything the Tkaches did/didn’t do prove whether or not God exists?

    As far as your question about healing, I’m not really interested in “old fundie atheist saws”. God has a mind of His own so He can decide to heal whoever He wants to; that’s not up to me.

    I realize what the Tkaches did must have been traumatic for anyone who believed in Armstrongism, but there’s a whole world out there that was not affected by it, or even knew about it; their belief in God has nothing to do with the WWCOG. For a cult to turn away from its heretical teachings is unprecedented; if you were there when it happened you were present at a historical event. It rarely, if ever, happens, and although you may not see the good in it, others do. If that event freed some people from Armstrongism, that’s one good thing right there.

  • angel says:

    Aggie,

    My response to Mike’s remark that Herbie not suffering the mandated punishment for prophesying falsely many times while claiming to represent God proves the Bible is not the word of God was to point out that this is not something God expects the church to do; and that while Deut. 18:20-22 doesn’t say by whose hand the false prophet should die, it also doesn’t say when or how. Clearly I don’t agree with his statement, but that’s how I chose to respond.

    He’s never asked me for proof that God exists the way you have, and he respects my right to have an opinion even if he doesn’t agree with it.

    I realize it offends your concept of diversity to think there is only one true God, but I can’t help that. People believe something because they think it’s true; otherwise they’re just going along with it because it’s fun or convenient, in which case why should it matter whether it’s true or not? And if they think something is true, then whatever conflicts with that must be false. That sounds like common sense to me, but I guess some see it as being narrow-minded. Whatever. I’m not trying to change your mind about anything so keep on believing whatever you want to believe.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Ely Days, I have moderated your comment. Totally preaching. I’ve let this comment thread get a bit out of hand. Let’s get back to discussing False Prophet Ronald Weinland, maybe even his Swiss bank accounts.

  • Ely Days says:

    Dear Mike,

    For what I see is that we all want to know the truth, what is our purpouse?, many I think. It is written that we should not be wise in our own opinion, and that we all will sit under the judgment sit of Jesus Christ and every knee shall bow to him and evry tongue shall confess to God, when we talk about God the only way to find the truth is through his word the bible, old testament and new testament (all interrelated). Now going to the subject, it is written the fulfilment of the law is love, when love is in our heart, not necesarely having an understanding of baby just having a malice of baby, but understanding of Mature man and we all are growing, now ronald wrote a book making petition for some minister to be killed which he called brother before the “church” split. The measage of Jesus Christ is love your brother, love your enemy and if you do then you are my true disciple andl Paul in Romans wrote that whatsoever we have to love anyone and not to judge anyone. Then tell me is your reasoning if a man has broke that testimony, he has make himself a murtherer publicly and then publicly he should ask for forgiveness and admit he was wrong, we all do privetly by hating some people then is up to us to ask for forgiveness, then ronald by himself has made a false disciple of Jesus Christ, God forgive if I am wrong. If we follow the blind we will fall in the same hole.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Ely, you’re still preaching at me. If you want to get through to me, grammar helps.

    I suggest that before you post again, you read my blog and see from where I’m coming.

  • Atrocious says:

    Ely, from what I get from your post is; since “ronald wrote a book making petition for some minister to be killed which he called brother before the “church” split…..” and “…the message of Jesus Christ is love your brother…” etc., and “…if a man has broke that testimony…” he should “….ask for forgiveness and admit he was wrong,…” “…then ronald by himself has made [himself] a false disciple of Jesus Christ,” … In other words, since Ron, by his own words, is a false prophet, should we follow him? Absolutely not.

    Ron supposedly preaches “from the bible” but he twists it to say what he wants it to say. Yes, he should do what he said he was going to do when he gave the “if by Pentecost” speech and stop preaching, claim himself to be a false prophet and be done with it. But he didn’t do that, so that makes him a liar. His prophecies never came to pass so that makes him a false prophet. And, in the “if by Pentecost” speech, he said to continue to preach and prophecy after that time would be insane, so, by his own words, he is insane. Hence, Insane Liar False Prophet Ronald Weinland.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Ely, you left another pair of comments which I have moderated. I’m going to respond to one of your comments addressed to me, the other one addressed to another commenter here I’m not allowing.

    Ely said: “Mike,
    Sorry for the grammer, I have read some of your comments, 1. that the bible is not the word of God 2. Your father belonged to WCOG, forgive if I am wrong. I tell you for me the Bible is the word of God, maybe in the translation has been lost some of the autenticity but overall the meassage is there, and about the hard feeling, the day you forgive you will feel better because God is justice.

    Improved grammar helps. As far as forgiving, I’ve done that. But it doesn’t mean that I’ve forgotten.

    Along the way many God’s people has walk through the right way and at some stage they fail, and when they do not recognize then they go down early or late doesn’t matter, Your father as a family responsable did what was in his heart, nobody just get rid off their properties and gives for a cause, his cause was to God because he though he was a man of God and that the end was coming, it is in the bible many people sold and gave to the church but Rom 16:18-20 also mention that some churches will take advantage but they will be finished.

    There will always be men willing to take advantage of the gullible. Ron Weinland is not unique in that regard.

    My appologies if I still don’t get the point of what you want.

    This blog is not about preaching to others. While I’ve allowed expression of a variety of points of view, from bible beaters to atheists, the blog is not about converting people to a particular viewpoint. It’s about exposing a false prophet taking advantage of the gullible, since Herbie’s not around mini-Herb is available.

    I’m curious as to what brings you to this blog. Did you even know who Ron Weinland was before coming here?

  • Steve says:

    I don’t get all this forgive business…..there is no reason to forgive anyone for anything IF they have never apologised…after all Ely that is what your God says….he won’t forgive ANYONE who is not repentant and so it is hypocritical if God is sayin we should forgive others that “are not sorry” but he (god) does not have to (sends un-repentants to hell)….

  • Debbie says:

    Mal posted in response to me ” But firstly, I’m surprised you only use the term ‘interesting coincidences’” –

    My viewpoint is that they are not proven fact – please, Mal, respect that and do not try to persuade me – I have studied these things thoroughly enough

    Mal also posted- “My own opinion is that our amount of participation in them should be as much as we are willing and able. It should be between the individual and God how much or how little that is. Undue pressure regarding the level of participation exerted by one human being onto another would be out of order, and I guess that is where you (and Aggie) are coming from.” –

    You expression of this is a balanced approach-

    However, Ronald Weinland would not agree with you – He would tell you of your need to repent of the thinking that you, yourself can decide what is the correct way to follow his god and Ronald would require you to submit to the god-given authority of Ronald Weinland – right down to wearing a tie in your home on Saturday while you are listening to Ronald’s sermon –

    To me that is very unbalanced –

    And to me, it is down-right criminal of Ronald to demand his gullible followers to do “Total Resolve” and liquidate their assets and send the funds to Ronald so that he can put them into a Swiss Bank account in his own name – and to blatantly show by these actions that he does not rely upon his god to provide for him & Laura the way he tells his gullible followers to rely upon his god –

    Mal, I am glad to read that you are deciding certain things for yourself and not being dictated to by Ronald Weinland – My viewpoint is that, in time, you will come to see that Ronald is a Lying, Insane False Prophet – just as he has described himself in his own words many times.

  • Aggie says:

    “First of all, WWCOG wasn’t God’s “one true church”, and why would anything the Tkaches did/didn’t do prove whether or not God exists?”

    It wasn’t, and it didn’t, but that was my thinking at the time.

    “As far as your question about healing, I’m not really interested in “old fundie atheist saws”. God has a mind of His own so He can decide to heal whoever He wants to; that’s not up to me.”

    That’s the usual believers’ evasion to that question; still doesn’t provide a good answer for the question, however.

    “For a cult to turn away from its heretical teachings is unprecedented; if you were there when it happened you were present at a historical event.”

    How far they’ve REALLY turned away from their “heretical teachings”, remains to be seen; apparently there is a large cohort, still within the walls of Gracie’s congregations, that persist in “holding fast to the faith once delivered”; ministers still counsel members that it’s A-OK not to believe in the pagan Christian trinity, and that they can still keep the Sabbath and dietary laws, regardless of all the “changes” that were supposed to have been ushered in, in 1994. And, let’s not forget Joseph Tkach Jr’s promise, that he would step down as the unelected, self-appointed, Pastor-General-in-Perpetuity of the church, by 1997 (the relevant quote is found on the sidebar at Stan Gardner’s blog); talk about a false prophecy!

    As for it being “a historical event”, I would venture to say that only former or current church members think of it this way; of all the people I have encountered, in my fifteen-plus years out of the church, not one of them has know what the Worldwide Church of God, or who Herbert Armstrong, was. To think of the changes as “seismic” or “historic” or in any way grandiose, lends a credence and power to the church, that it simply never had. We were a very small drop, in the midst of a very large sea. Especially when considered in the light of the myriad of world religions that exist today. (There are more religions than just Christianity in this world, Angel, whether you want to believe that or not.)

    “It rarely, if ever, happens, and although you may not see the good in it, others do. If that event freed some people from Armstrongism, that’s one good thing right there.”

    Oh, we are agreed on that; what we seem to disagree on is the fact that you are here on Mike’s blog, demanding that others be sucked right into your version of “the one true religion”; the event in question not only freed me from Armstrongism, it freed me from all religion, which is unquestionably false, for me.

  • Aggie says:

    “Over the past several years I attended a Bible School where I had the 7000 year plan of God explained to me and how it was connected with the Sabbath and God’s Festivals. “

    There are a handful of “Bible Schools” in the continental US, that are run by known ex-members of the Worldwide Church of God. There’s no doubt in my mind, Mal, given the wording of your statement, that this “Bible School” you ended up at, was one of them. So, your argument that these things have been preached to you “outside of Armstrongism”? Is false.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Aggie, where exactly did Angel demand anything of us? Not seeing any demand. Angel’s worldview is Angel’s worldview. If it works for him/her, so be it. And your worldview works for you.

    At least neither of you are being exploited by an Insane Lying False Prophet.

  • Ely Days says:

    Steve,

    It is true, if somebody is not repented there is not forgiveness and there is nothing to forgive. You know that God is Love and there is no question about it either if you want to take the Bible just as a history. That is the reason that having Faith, Hope and Love is important but Love is gretaer of all. Ronald has offended many people publicly and in written maybe with “good intention” of his believe but has stepped outside the line I mean He is not doing the commandment of Jesus Christ, to ask for somebody to be killed in written is not love is hate, for sure all of us we do privately by hating others but we can ask for forgiveness and He is faithful to forgive us. Ronald has ask to that church reps, I do not know and to correct has to be in written also. To act as god is not too bad but to take the place of God or of the Lord Jesus Christ that is really bad.

  • Aggie says:

    “At least neither of you are being exploited by an Insane Lying False Prophet.”

    True, but Angel’s bible-beating strikes me very much as, her only reason for being here, is not compassion for those still trapped in the WCG/PKG mindset, she’s just looking to “prey” vulnerable, hurting ex-members, from the frying pan, into the fire! I mean, she may not consciously realize that’s what she’s doing, but it is ingrained in professing Christians, that that’s what they must be compelled to do; everyone has to be a Christian, or else they’re all going to “burn in eternal torment” (which is just ridiculous on the face of it, but I won’t get into that).

    That completely ignores the solid, proven fact, that there are many many MANY more religions in this world, than just Christianity; and not all of them demand conversion of the “unbelievers”, to quite the same degree that professing Christianity demands, of those who disagree with it (And yes, it is a “demand”, otherwise we wouldn’t have to deal with the bible beaters as we have; say what you will, for the abuses of the WCG; at least we were never required to make fools of ourselves, for our beliefs, nor were we actively conditioned to force our beliefs onto others!)

    My point is this. Many many many many many cult recovery counsellors, suggest that it is best for the exiting cult member to take a “breather”, in other words, NOT to jump from their closed, high-demand religion, right into the arms of another one, no matter how benign; this is sound thinking, both psychologically, and emotionally. Angel (and the other bible beaters) don’t take this into consideration, they just continue to preach, as if they, somehow, have achieved the ultimate “truth” — when the delusion that there is any kind of “ultimate truth”, is what has led all of us to this blog, here, today, right now.

    I also note Mal hasn’t told us which “Bible School” it is he’s attended for several years, that has taught him “the truths”, allegedly “outside of Armstrongism”….I would be willing to lay odds, based on his phrasing, that it is run by one of the “independent” minister, who got into their own start-ups, after the changes occurred. What say you, Mal? Which Bible School is it that you’ve attended? What is its name? What is the name of its founder? How many people are there on the faculty? Where it is located? It is recognized by any other religious education authority? Is it a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability? Do you know where your tuition costs are being spent? Are they clearly being spent on the school, or are they going into the pockets of the owners of the school instead?

    As has been repeated ad nauseam here, “Follow the money.”

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Aggie, people don’t fit neatly into just a few pigeonholes. I haven’t seen an evangelical side to Angel as you portray. I agree with your point that exiting members should take a breather before choosing another, rebound relationships don’t work well. Which is what Kirrily is doing, if Angel tried to recruit her it didn’t work.

  • Aggie says:

    “I agree with your point that exiting members should take a breather before choosing another, rebound relationships don’t work well. Which is what Kirrily is doing….”

    That’s pretty much the crux of my point. I just wanted it made clear, that it’s probably best to take a break from ALL religion, never mind how nice/friendly/outgoing/”loving” (Yeah, angel wishing we would be struck down by her god certainly fits that bill, doesn’t it?) people seem to be, at the outset. Also, I want to impress upon people the value of engaging in comparative religion reading; there are MANY different religions out there, than just Christianity. I am not urging people to read about these religions, so they may “convert” to them, I am urging people to read about the various world religions out there, so they may clearly understand where other people are coming from; communicating exclusively with Christians, you can’t get a sense of that at all, beyond a very narrow scope, with only a few exceptions. (The Universalist Quakers being one such exception, IMO.)

    Think outside the box! Christianity is NOT the be-all, end-all, major world religion, that its adherents would have you believe…but it certainly has engaged (and continues to engage in, if Afghanistan is any indication) in violent, bloody, murderous, treacherous actions, in the name of their religion of “love”. Which is not to say that other religions haven’t fallen prey to the same mistake; I think one would be hard-pressed to find a religion outside of the sphere of Abrahamic origins (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, Islam), that has actively instigated such violence, without being provoked to it…by one or another of the Abrahamic-influenced groups. Reading about other world religions provides more of a well-rounded view on these conflicts, which is sadly lacking, IMO, when one approaches a worldview that is comprised solely of (even unconsciously) the mindset of the Abrahamic religions.

    And that’s MY preaching quota fulfilled, for quite some time yet, I think…..

  • Mal says:

    Aggie, you said:

    “There are a handful of “Bible Schools” in the continental US, that are run by known ex-members of the Worldwide Church of God. There’s no doubt in my mind, Mal, given the wording of your statement, that this “Bible School” you ended up at, was one of them. So, your argument that these things have been preached to you “outside of Armstrongism”? Is false.”

    I’m not residing in the continental US.

    The Bible School I attended based it’s studies on examining the Scriptures from a Hebraic perspective, using the language, culture and customs of ancient Israel. The 7000 year plan of God, ending with Jesus’ Millennial reign for 1000 years, was a fundamental part of the teaching. The importance to that plan of God’s Sabbath and God’s Festivals from Leviticus 23 was included. It was stated that the 7000 year plan of God was according to that taught by the ancient Jewish rabbis. There is a reference to this in Talmud Sanhedrin 93b.

    It is also clear that some parts of the early church taught the same thing, as evidenced by writings like the 200 AD Epistle of Barnabas, Chap.15 The Apostolic Fathers, pp.151-152 . Also the 180 AD writing ‘Against Heresies’ by Irenaeus.

    No charge was ever demanded for the studies (except for materials like Hebrew tutor books), although any voluntary donations were accepted.

    During the period of over ten years I attended the school, I never once heard any mention of Herbert W. Armstrong or any Church of God.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Mal, at what point along the 7000-year timeline did your Bible school believe we are now?

  • Mal says:

    Approx 6000 years, based on Biblical info including ages of the patriarchs etc. It was explained that the date of today’s Hebrew calendar does not match reality, as they don’t count some of the years the Israelites were in exile in Egypt and Babylon.

  • Mark says:

    Well said Angel. Amazing how those IN the WCG were rabid anti-mainstream Christianity (myself included at one point) only to continue that same hatred OUT of the WCG. I see the common denominator here. The message is hard for them to hear.

  • Whisper says:

    We only get a mere 7,000 years? What a jip!
    What? We only get 6,000 years on our own and God will rule to remaining 1,000? What a jip.
    I had rather thought we were a race of limitless potential both inward and outward.
    But we get a mere 6,000 years to bring it to fruition?
    I used to be of the opinion that we might have 80 or 90 thousand years at a minimum to really show our potential as a race, really rise up to the heavens and come to know a galaxy as more than mere lights in the sky’s.
    But if the jig is up then I sure hope the man in charge has noted the handicaps he’s given us in time allowed.

    Mathematical formulas in a bible. Pa-sheesh! I am in a strong mathematical orientated profession and it rules my working day, but to even think it rules my walk of faith is just down right retarded.
    Ron has a mathematical formula of faith just like Harold Camping does, and both are so full of holes that they are hard to read and not laugh (I in fact do not succeed in not laughing).
    Ya, and 40 and 7 are just oh so important for making 280 which is one of Ron’s cornerstones in why the GT is not so great yet.
    Well, since the 280 stupidity was instigated by Ronny has the GT become greater now? Has the GT come about at all, thunder or trumpet?
    Hardly.

    Go figure.

  • angel says:

    Aggie,

    Let’s focus on the real reason you even bother to direct a comment to me – your insistence on believing that I am here on Mike’s blog, demanding that others be sucked right into my version of “the one true religion”. That’s it in a nutshell, isn’t it? That’s why you recently “demanded” that I “stop it”.

    Forget about the fact that Mike, whose blog this is, disagrees with you on this. Forget that others on this blog have said you’re wrong to think I am directing any of my statements directly to you (apparently its clear to them if not to you); forget that no one else here seems to feel that I am preaching at them. Forget about the fact that I have stated, more than once, that I am not here to preach or change anyone’s mind.

    I commend you for turning away from Armstrongism, and I agree that it would be good for ex-members to take a breather before jumping into any other belief system. I’ve said before that Ron is not the only cult leader I’m interested in, and that I hate the idea of people being hurt and deceived by such men. I’m sorry if you don’t believe that, but I can’t help what you choose to believe.

  • angel says:

    Aggie,

    In regard to your “old fundie atheist saw”; I’ve come across them in many books and atheist websites and what I’ve observed is that some of these questions are not coming from a sincere quest for answers but are being used as a way to make the atheist feel satisfied to continue in his current belief. I don’t sense sincerity in the tone of your question; I sense hostility. That’s understandable considering that you came out a cult, but it would not be beneficial for us to engage in such a discussion, not to mention that this really isn’t the forum for it.

    You’d consider any answer I gave you as evasive, because questions such as the one you asked are designed that way. I don’t want to play games, or waste time explaining my beliefs (which are sincere and dear to my heart) to someone who has made it loud and clear they wish I’d shut up.

    It would be better if we stuck to the topic, which is Ron.

  • angel says:

    Mark,

    You’re absolutely right. It must be hard for anyone who has left a cult and turned away from the idea of God altogether to hear people who still do believe; so it’s important, I think, to understand how this could give them a bad attitude toward us. This is why I agree with Aggie that it’s a good idea for ex-members to take a breather before jumping into another belief system; not only do they need to understand how they were deceived to avoid this happening again, but they also need time to heal.

    Some people, unfortunately, don’t seem to heal very well, or take a very long time. I think it’s like a physical wound that is constantly getting the scab/stitches ripped off; it continues to bleed, it continues to hurt and most likely become infected – the poison of bitterness is painful.

    One of the things I most appreciate about this blog is the opportunity for ex-members to share their experiences, vent a little, laugh a little and in so doing be encouraged and supported; hopefully this will help with the healing process.

  • Mark says:

    Angel- as far as the amputee is concerned- there are examples of Jesus healing the crippled and the leper. Heck, he even raised someone from the dead (much more noteworthy in my book).
    Those who use the amputee as a defense for atheism aren’t looking for an answer.

  • angel says:

    Mark,

    That’s my feeling as well.

  • Aggie says:

    “The Bible School I attended based it’s studies on examining the Scriptures from a Hebraic perspective, using the language, culture and customs of ancient Israel. The 7000 year plan of God, ending with Jesus’ Millennial reign for 1000 years, was a fundamental part of the teaching. The importance to that plan of God’s Sabbath and God’s Festivals from Leviticus 23 was included. It was stated that the 7000 year plan of God was according to that taught by the ancient Jewish rabbis. There is a reference to this in Talmud Sanhedrin 93b.”

    Which doesn’t give us any information such as: 1. The name of the bible school (which is what I asked you for) 2. The name of the founder of the bible school (which is what I asked), and where it is located.

    One of the former ministers (IIRC actually started up a Church of God splinter group in Jerusalem, so your “non-church-of-god-bible-school” might very well still have ties to Armstrongism; they’re just circumspect enough, not to use Herbie’s name, because of what happened with the WCG, and the bad reputations (Well-deserved!) that all of the WCG splintergroups have, “worldwide”. Especially given the way you’ve worded your comments; they are absolutely identical to the buzzwords and catch-phrases we used to use, in the church (i.e., 7000-year “Plan of God”, “God’s Holy Days”, etc).

    I do believe that, should you do a little digging, and research the history of your “bible school”, you’re going to find that it does have ties to Armstrongism; although if they’re being that circumspect about it, you might get into a considerable amount of trouble, for asking the wrong questions!

    Just food for thought, Mal.

    (Oh, and for our resident bible beaters here, my only response is this. Logical fallacy, much?)

  • angel says:

    Bible beaters… sticks ‘n stones, Aggie. Been called worse; thankfully my skin has gotten pretty thick since I’ve been blogging.

    As I said before, I’ve heard/read alot of what atheists put out there and so far haven’t seen anything that comes close to proving the non-existence of God. Forgive me for not taking the time to go to your link, I’ll respond to a comment of yours if I think there’s any point to it, but I’m not going to invest alot of time reading somebody else’s opinions.

    Have a pleasant day!

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    I’m going to let Angel have the last word on the existence of God. This doesn’t mean any kind of endorsement, it just means that the discussion is off topic. Aggie, if you wish to discuss that topic in further depth, I would be happy to provide a link to your response on another blog. Send me an email.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Mal said: “Approx 6000 years, based on Biblical info including ages of the patriarchs etc. It was explained that the date of today’s Hebrew calendar does not match reality, as they don’t count some of the years the Israelites were in exile in Egypt and Babylon.”

    According to Wikipedia, there are either 164 or 165 missing years. Since we’re in Jewish calendar year 5771 or thereabouts, or 229 years to the 6000 year point, subtract the missing years and I’ll start worrying about it in 60 years or so.

  • Mal says:

    60 represents just 1 per cent of 6000, Mike. Pretty close I would say.

    But I prefer to use the Bible itself, and Biblical chronology shows that we are there or thereabouts at the 6000 year point in our generation.
    I remember discussing this and providing more information in the earlier ‘Plague of Butts’ thread.

    Aggie, it is not necessary to publish the name of the Bible School. If your point is to do with whether the ‘7000 year plan of God’ exists outside of Armstrongism, this can be readily proven by a web search. There is a reference to it in the Jewish Talmud and in the writings of the early church.
    I already gave examples.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Mal said: “60 represents just 1 per cent of 6000, Mike. Pretty close I would say.”

    But not close enough for Ron’s timeline to fit. I don’t know how old your are, but it’s not close enough for my generation.

    Biblical chronology is so inexact that people are going to be arguing that we’re at the end of the 6000 years for several hundred more years.

  • Mal says:

    “Biblical chronology is so inexact………”

    Depends how we each see the Bible, Mike. Is it God’s Word or not ?

    As someone who believes it is, I can see that God’s Holy Spirit ensured there was enough information in there so we can work out close enough where we are in history. For example, the way the genealogy of all the Patriarchs is included with all their ages. The link I put in ‘Plague of Butts’ does a pretty good job of piecing it all together.

    For me, the Bible is the authority not Wikipedia.

    It doesn’t prove anything about Ron Weinland, but it tells me that the particular issue of where we are in history doesn’t rule him out.

  • Aggie says:

    “Bible beaters… sticks ‘n stones, Aggie.”

    Mike used the term, long before I ever did, Angel. You’re sneering in the wrong direction….

  • Aggie says:

    “Aggie, it is not necessary to publish the name of the Bible School. “

    Why? If your bible school has no connection with Armstrongism, why not publish its name? That will just prove your assertions, that you have come to this “understanding” from outside of Armstrongism…which I doubt, given the clear Armstrongist buzzwords and loaded language, that you have been using, throughout our exchanges. I know this for a fact, because I used to use the same language, myself.

  • angel says:

    Aggie,

    Mike may have used that term, but I’m pretty sure he used it in the context of someone who is demanding that others believe the way they do; something that he said he doesn’t see me doing. I’m not sneering at you, Aggie, that was said with a tired sigh, because it’s getting a little old that I seem to have to keep explaining to you that I am not trying to make you believe or change your mind about anything. How many times do I have to say it? To clear up this confusion, when I make a statement that you feel is ME demanding that YOU have to believe the way I do, point it out to me immediately. And please don’t include statements where I’m just sharing my view, because that’s not the same thing.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Aggie, if you must characterize someone, do it of Weinland. As far as the other commenters, if you must discuss their ideas, do it without characterizing them. And don’t extrapolate beyond what they share to an entire stereotyped belief set.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Mal, I took another look at the link you provided on the other thread. We could quibble about their math, for example in Judges they allow no time for the Israelites to become decadent after a judge dies and for God’s wrath to grow.

    But taking their math at face value, 4000 years from Adam to Christ, then if Christ was born in 4 BCE we’re well past the 6000 year point, more like the 6013 year point.

  • Kirrily XPKG says:

    Mal, that was a MAJOR thing for me that attracted me to Ron.

    Ronnie said that PROOF of him being God’s prophet would be in things coming to pass EXACTLY as the 2 books wrote, and what he clearly STATED was from GOD HIMSELF in sermons and interviews (then later said he made them up based on his OWN UNDERSTANDING).

    After all, look at all the confusion out there (only ONE is about where we are in time – not to mention the MILLIONS of other disputed areas of understanding of the BIBLE).

    Again, Ronnie said that GOD was going to reveal HIMSELF NOW, yes NOW, to the WORLD by ensuring these events occured, again, EXACTLY as was given to Ron by GOD HIMSELF.

    If this is how God makes things CLEAR, then either I am VERY stupid, God Doesn’t exist, or Ron is a liar.

    I’m going with Ron being a liar.

  • Aggie says:

    “As far as the other commenters, if you must discuss their ideas, do it without characterizing them.”

    I’m not. I’m saying essentially the same things you have said here yourself, but because you’re the blog admin, AND they’re not using you for a straw man (the way Angel and Mark seem to have me, over the last couple of posts), that doesn’t mean a hill of beans, does it? YOU were the one who said the failure of Armstrong’s prophecies proved the Bible was false, and they didn’t jump all over YOU for that; I merely repeated it, and found myself on the receiving end of some truly Christian rhetoric; same thing with the term “bible-beaters” — YOU said it first, they just let it slide on by; *I* said it, and it was open f**king season on me!

    Hypocrites! You don’t have a problem with the terms I’m using, or you would have called Mike out on them! You have a f**king problem with ME!

  • Aggie says:

    And Mal still hasn’t told us the name of that bible school of his….I would be willing to bet good money that it IS a “bible school” affiliated with either LCG or PCG (which could be why he’s afraid to admit it, on a blog he knows is monitored by the PKG Levites), or one of the few independents that have sprung up, in the wake of the splintering.

    Come on, Mal, time to put up or shut up: You say your bible school has nothing to do with Armstrongism, and that’s what proves Weinland to you? Tell us the name of your bible school, so we can KNOW, for an undisputable fact, that it has NOTHING to do with the church, and then we might, just might, be able to take your statements at more than face value!

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Aggie, there’s more to the story than what you’ve given 2 comments prior. I’m considering comments you’ve made to other postings as well.

    As far as Mal’s Bible school, here’s a link that he’s given previously on the 7000-year plan of God he finds so significant. Follow it and do a bit of detective work.

  • Mal says:

    Aggie,

    As I said before, if your point is to do with whether the ‘7000 year plan of God’ exists outside of Armstrongism, this can readily be proven by a web search. There is a reference to it in the Jewish Talmud and in the writings of the early church. I have already given examples in my earlier post.

    I am no longer attending the Bible School and don’t feel at liberty to publish the address here on the blog.
    But I have sent the address to Mike by e-mail.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Coincidentally, I saw a comment by Don Doherty relating to the 7000-year plan on The Weinland Witness blog. Since Citizen X will probably delete it, I’ve reproduced his comment on a page on this blog.

  • Aggie says:

    Ignore everything I posted below this (although it’s corroborating evidence), Eddie Chumney (the founder of Mal’s “non-Armstrongite bible school”) absolutely DOES have ties to the church!

    Eddie Chumney spoke at a Church of God Feast of Tabernacles in 1997.

    “The Feast of Tabernacles at Ocean Shores, Washington.

    To the best of our knowledge the feast site at Ocean Shores will be the first of it’s kind. We are providing a site where people can gather together and learn from one another (both Messianic and Christian). We are doing our best to bring special speakers in that should inspire and educate all of those who attend. This year’s speakers include : Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Eddie Chumney, Ken Westby, Doug Dolly … and more.

    Ocean Shores is located on the Washington coast. We hope to attract around 500 (the site will accommodate 1000). We have prepared a housing packet that we can send you. Let us know the address you would like us to send it to and we will send it right out.

    Rick Richardson (SCGI)

    P.O. Box 111

    Auburn, WA 98071-0111

    e-mail: lifenet2@aol.com

    Phone: 1-800-333-5208

    Fax: 1-253-351-2973

    Well, everything I can dig up on Eddie Chumney suggests that he’s had a LOT of contact with ex-Worldwiders; so either Chumney is tailoring his “message”, to keep them in, OR, they’ve contaminated his message, with Armstrongism.

    Exhibit A

    And here’s the money shot on Eddie Chumney, from Rick Ross (emphasis mine):

    While Chumney alludes to both Jewish texts and the New Testament scriptures, mixing doctrines and beliefs from both, he chafes at the accusation that he has made up his own religion. He simply wants “the house of Judah” to recognize “the house of Joseph” (his house) and for the latter to recognize Jesus’s “true” mission “foreshadowed in the Torah when those who received the law at Mt. Sinai were the only ones who escaped Egypt because they had put the blood on their doorposts.”

    Chumney asserts that “obviously, there’s not going to be paper documentation” for the Ephraimite/Northern Kingdom/Lost Tribe/ House of Joseph connection. The only “proof,” it seems, is that one adheres to Chumney’s instruction.

    The Chumney/Wootten type of teaching is mushrooming. Rick Ross, an internationally-recognized cult expert, and a former Clevelander, calls it “a growing phenomenon in the United States.”

    Ross “runs into these groups all the time,” but says the “Hebraic Roots” movement is really just an old teaching with a facelift. He points out that the Worldwide Church of God, founded by Herbert Armstrong in 1934, taught that Anglo-Saxons are direct descendants of the 10 lost tribes of Israel, and that church viewed that teaching as the key, unlocking a true understanding of biblical prophecy. At its peak, there were 65,000 Armstrongists, says Ross.

    “These groups are very misleading and very disingenuous,” he cautions. “They have an affinity for Jewish holidays and symbols but have no Jewish background whatsoever,” says Ross. “It really becomes a shanda (shame), as my grandmother would say, when they start parading around with Torah scrolls and trotting out Jewish symbols.”

    Actually, says Ross, there is a psychological component as to why certain types of people are attracted to these types of groups. “It gives them a sense of elite identity. In fact, there is a Yiddish phrase that sums it up perfectly: kol mamzer melech n Every bastard wants to be a king.”

    Exhibit C (search for “Mike Dunn” on the page, it’s about a third of the way down)

    OK, so Rick got the membership numbers wrong (I’ve read 80,000, and we were always told 150,000, so it’s anybody’s guess which is closer), but the teaching is absolutely associated with thw Worldwide Church of God, and Chumney has clearly had contact with Worldwide Church of God members.

    At this point, we must point out that Mrs. [Ellen] White had unlimited confidence in [Walter] Miller, despite his failed prophecy of 1844 for the return of Jesus. Likewise, she had not been shy about plagiarizing George Storrs conditional state of the dead, i.e. soul sleep. R.V. Lyon’s interpretation of Ezekiel has long since been SDA faire, and has since been replicated in books by Eddie Chumney other HRM savants. Found here.

    How much more proof do you need that Eddie Chumney and the church are not all tied up together? your Eddie got a ringing endorsement from Thielogical Bob, Mal. (Bob, by the way, has written his own set of false prophecy books, on why the Mayan calendar proves the Catholics were right. Yeah, I don’t get it, either.)

    Look at how many ex-Worldwiders answered this survey on where/how they encountered British-Israelism; which includes mention of Chumney’s books.

    So, Mal, your assertion that you’ve been taught this “outside of Armstrongism” is, as I stated earlier, false. Armstrongism taints everything it touches. And clearly, the founder of your “bible school”, is ABSOLUTELY no stranger to Armstrongism, himself.

  • Aggie says:

    Hahaha I just read that comment by Don Doherty. Sounds like the natives are getting restless again!

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    So was Samuele Bacchiocchi an Armstrongite as well? After all, he must have been since he also was invited to speak. Not seeing where it says that Chumney was an Armstrongite.

    Until I see that, I’m assuming that he generated all this nonsense on his own or from some other source. After all, Herbie plagiarized his British Israelism nonsense as well as most of his doctrine from others.

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Aggie said “Sounds like the natives are getting restless again!”

    I don’t follow. How?

  • Mal says:

    Hi Aggie,

    Your info on Eddie Chumney is interesting, but does it get to the heart of the point you were originally making, which I thought was ‘does the 7000 year plan of God exist outside Armstrongism?’. I reproduce the text below from just one of the references you can find on the web:-

    The Epistle of Barnabas, chap.15 The Apostolic Fathers, pp.151-152 ,a document of the early church period written about 200 A.D states the following (emphasis mine):

    “of the sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And God made the works of his hands in six days and He ended on the seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.`Give heed,children,what this meaneth,`He ended in six days`.

    He meaneth this,that IN SIX THOUSAND YEARS THE LORD SHALL BRING ALL THINGS TO AND END, for the day with Him signifieth a thousand years; and this He himself beareth me witness,saying,`behold,the day of the Lord shall be as a THOUSAND YEARS.
    `
    Therefore,children,in six days,that is IN SIX THOUSAND YEARS,EVERYTHING SHALL COME TO AN END`.And He rested on the seventh day`.

    This he meaneth; WHEN HIS SON SHALL COME, AND SHALL ABOLISH THE TIME OF THE LAWLESS ONE, and shall judge the ungodly,and shall change the sun and the moon and the stars,then shall He truly rest on the seventh day”.

    Incidentally, over the ten years I attended the Bible School, Eddie Chumney’s name was never mentioned, although his ministry is obviously related.

  • Whisper says:

    It takes a bit of “Interpretation” to glean the 6,000 and 7,000 year theology does it not?
    It just does not seem to be so plain and simple, so absolutely straight forward, ya know?
    One has to attest 1,000 years to each “day” and then go with it.
    This is called “Interpreting”, making a educated deduction from words or print that does not actually state such in simple straight forward language.
    So, Ron and Herby (and many before them) INTERPRETED this 1,000 years per day from a different point in the bible to adhere to the current passage under evaluation.
    Took one passage, out of context, to confirm another passage much further down the bible reading way.

    Now the thing that is needed at this point is pure and simple, faith. One must have faith in the INTERPRETER of this theology. That is how 80,000+ people turned to belief in Herb and how 300+/- turned to believe in Ron.
    Not note that this is not belief in a Bible, a passage or a biblical writer or even God, it’s belief in an INTERPRETATION made by some guy.
    Well heck, I can make interpretations out of the bible. So what makes Herbies or Ron’s better than mine? Oh ya, they talk directly to God and I’m just riff-raff common rank and file believer.

    Go figure?

  • angel says:

    Whisper,

    “Not note that this is not belief in a Bible, a passage or a biblical writer or even God, it’s belief in an INTERPRETATION made by some guy.”

    That blows my mind, too, because you got it right – Ron’s message is not about believing the Bible, Bible prophecy, or God; his attitude in that regard seems to be that most people don’t (and he doesn’t seem too broken-hearted about it) – his deal is wanting people to believe HIS INTERPRETATION of things the Bible says, and to believe things he claims God told him that are NOT found in the Bible.

    It really is all about Ron.

  • Atrocious says:

    That’s why he keeps saying “God has revealed to me”. He has elevated himself to transcend the Bible. Yes, it is all about Ron. He has made himself god-ron. He loves money and power. I dare say that, to me, he is the devil incarnate. He shows all the fruits of the devil, he thinks like the devil does, he schemes like the devil does, he hates like the devil does, and the devil thinks he transcends God. Ron is a god in his own eyes. He’s a sick, delusional man.

  • angel says:

    Atrocious,

    Hard to disagree with that; when I think of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control – Ron doesn’t immediately spring to mind.

  • Aggie says:

    “So was Samuele Bacchiocchi an Armstrongite as well? After all, he must have been since he also was invited to speak. Not seeing where it says that Chumney was an Armstrongite.”

    I’m not saying Chumney WAS a church member, I’m saying he (like Bacchicchi) is still mixed up in Armstrongism; speaking at their Feasts, writing books that are read by many members, etcetera, has a lot (as demonstrated by the links I provided) of contact with Church of God members and ex-members (and a large number of self-styled “Messianic Jews” are former WCG members too, don’t forget), meaning that Mal’s assertion that Chumney’s bible school teaches “God’s True Truths” outside of Armstrongism, is completely false; as I stated earlier, Armstrongism taints everything it touches, and everything that touches it.

    Kind of like “unclean food” used to be….

  • Aggie says:

    “The Epistle of Barnabas, chap.15 The Apostolic Fathers, pp.151-152 ,a document of the early church period written about 200 A.D states the following (emphasis mine):”

    The Epistle of Barnabas was cited as THE source for the church’s Sabbatarianism, in the WCG’s Systematic Theology Project, which was published in the 60s or 70s IIRC, and then rescinded by the Apostle, during his “Get the Church BACK on TRACK!” megalomanic phase….Damn, the copy of it that was on the Internet has been taken down. Let me see if I can find my copy, I’ll upload it somewhere….But yes, the Systematic Theology Project (and indeed, the core basis of the theology of the church itself), was taken from such texts as Barnabas, and the other Hellenized-Judaic gospels.

    So, your assertion, that this is “outside of Armstrongism” is still incorrect, Mal; the teachings of the WCG are what brought books like the Epistle of Barnabas to the public forefront, in the first place. As I keep telling you, Armstrongism taints everything it touches, and everything touched by it; and Chumney has clearly, as I have demonstrated, been tainted by Armstrongism, given his repeated contact with the sect, and its ex-members, over the years since the changes.

  • Aggie says:

    OK I’ve re-uploaded the STP for anyone who wants it. Here’s what the church had to say about Barnabas, in 1978:

    “* When appeal is made to certain New Testament scriptures in an effort to change the Sabbath to Sunday, it is almost always in conjunction with
    (cont. page 17 )*(cont.) such references as Ignatius, Pliny the Younger, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache and Justin Martyr. For example, the term kuriake he’!:llera, “Lord I s day, II in Revelation 1:10 is almost always compared with Ignatius, Magnesians 9:10, as a means of showing that it certainly refers to Sunday rather than the eschatological Day of the Lord mentioned so often in the Old Testament. Recent scholarship has thrown serious doubt on this use of Magnesians 9:10; the most probable text is now thought to refer to “the Lord’s life” and does not mention the “Lord’s day.” It now seems that the earliest dated text to mention Sunday worship is Justin’s First Apology (chapter 67), written about 150 A.D. The Didache cannot be precisely dated. The letter of Pliny specifies no particular day of the week. The Epistle of Barnabas is not certainly dated; about 140 A.D. is widely accepted and very plausible. Some think it could go back as early as about 130, but a date as late as 150 is not excluded. For this reason, a number of the arguments and references to early Christian Sunday worship so often repeated in standard reference works are not really very solid, and the earliest certain mention of Christian Sunday worship is about 150, a century after Paul.”

    Using Barnabas as an appeal to Sabbatarianism is therefore a verified Armstrongist tactic, with tangible evidence dating this back to 1978; presumably the church was also teaching this earlier, as the STP was an attempt to codify everything the church had been teaching, since 1934.

  • Mal says:

    Aggie,

    It seems to me you are using inverted and unjustified logic.

    A logic that goes along the lines of :-

    HWA was a *****, therefore the whole of WCOG theology including the ‘7000 year plan of God’ must be false and utter nonsense; Eddie Chumney was linked to WCOG because he spoke there, so Eddie Chumney’s Hebraic Studies must be tainted and false; the early church writings of Barnabas must also be false because WCOG referred back to them. By the same token presumably you see the writings of Irenaeus and the Jewish Talmud also to be false.

    When you say that HWA and WCOG ‘taints’ everything, I fail to see how it could ‘taint’ Jewish and early church writings which have been around for approaching two millennia.

  • Mal says:

    Whisper said:

    It takes a bit of “Interpretation” to glean the 6,000 and 7,000 year theology does it not?
    It just does not seem to be so plain and simple, so absolutely straight forward, ya know?
    One has to attest 1,000 years to each “day” and then go with it.
    This is called “Interpreting”, making a educated deduction from words or print that does not actually state such in simple straight forward language.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Whisper, you are absolutely right.
    This is how God’s Word works. God does not always spell everything out in black and white. Much of His Word is in the form of ‘types and shadows’. We have to take a little bit from here, a little bit from there.

    As Isaiah 28:9,10 says:

    “To whom shall He teach knowledge? And to whom shall He explain the message? Those weaned from milk, those moving from breasts?

    For precept must be on precept, precept on precept; line on line, line on line; here a little, there a little.”
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Remember what it says in 2Pe 3:8:

    “But let not this one thing be hidden from you, beloved, that one day with the Lord is “as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (Psa. 90:4).
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    With God’s 7000 year plan in mind (and with Jesus’ Millenial rule commencing at the end of 6000 years), we can check out how God uses the number SIX in Scripture and let our spirit work. The following are a few examples of several:-

    Jesus at the wedding changed SIX water pots of water into wine (John 2:1-10).

    After SIX days Jesus took Peter, James and John up into a high mountain and was transfigured before them (Matt 17:1,2).

    The cloud covered Mt Sinai SIX days and on the seventh day God called to Moses out of the cloud (Exodus 24:13-18).

    There were SIX steps leading up to Solomon’s throne (2Chronicles 9:18)

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Whole lotta extrapolatin’ goin’ on here. Aggie extrapolates from Chumney’s appearance at some feast sites an influence from Armstrongism, instead of the other way around.

    And then we have some extrapolation from 2Pe 3:8 and a few other verses which have the number six an elaborate plan of God. There was some discussion a ways back about whether the Bible is the word of God. Won’t debate that point, but I will say that the Bible for sure is the word of men — Ron reads the Bible and owns it with his own special interpretations, and he’s not the only one.

  • angel says:

    I’m wondering if he bothers to read the Bible much anymore since he’s written his own holy books. At least he’s an equal opportunity “mis” interpreter, he’s been re-interpreting his own books ever since his prophecies started failing.

    Interpretations are funny things, you could give a book to 100 men asking them to give their opinions on what the author meant to convey, and you might not get two that were exactly the same. Unless you asked the author himself, what you’d end up with would be 100 opinions. Some of them might be quite good and reasonable, some of them might seriously suck. Just depends who you’re asking.

    Ron’s interpretations seriously suck.

  • Whisper says:

    Interpretations are funny things and guess’s at best.
    Listen to another persons opinions on any subject if you wish, and ween wisdom from them if you can, but always be warry that this “other” person may have an “aggenda” that will help himself and improvish you.
    Follow people whom are proven right or wrong at your peril. For those whom are proven right are right only for the moment and tommorow will statistically bring a different answer, for those whom are proven wrong is not the warning not even required?

    Go figure?

  • Aggie says:

    “HWA was a *****, therefore the whole of WCOG theology including the ‘7000 year plan of God’ must be false and utter nonsense;”

    Yes, but I am not the only one who holds this view, Mal. And the Worldwide Church of God was the driving force in bringing this idea into the public consciousness, moreso than it had languished in a few 19th-century Anglican books prior….

    “Eddie Chumney was linked to WCOG because he spoke there, so Eddie Chumney’s Hebraic Studies must be tainted and false;”

    If it quacks like a duck….Bacchiocchi was no great prize either, altho he’s practically sainted by CoG7 standards.

    “…the early church writings of Barnabas must also be false because WCOG referred back to them. By the same token presumably you see the writings of Irenaeus and the Jewish Talmud also to be false.”

    You’ve taken my logic a step too far, Mal; I don’t say those writings are false, I say they are distorted, to mean whatever people want them to say. The Jewish Talmud, on the other hand, is as close to a record of the oral Judaic traditions as is possible; the same cannot be said for the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the manuscripts that have been mis-translated, re-translated, and in some cases, fabricated from whole cloth (i.e., the “Textus Receptus”, upon which is based the entirety of the KJV), for three thousand years.

    We are not living three thousand years in the past, in the Ancient Middle East; other than as allegories for the human condition, why should any of the black-and-white, hard-and-fast requirements in the text, be applicable to us here and now?

  • Aggie says:

    “When you say that HWA and WCOG ‘taints’ everything, I fail to see how it could ‘taint’ Jewish and early church writings which have been around for approaching two millennia.”

    You’re looking at it from the wrong perspective, Mal; I’m not saying the church taints the early texts; I’m saying the church abuses the early texts, for its own gain and providence. And the same can be said of every single Church of God group extant today…..

  • Whisper says:

    “I’m saying the church abuses the early texts, for its own gain and providence.”

    Is there a known splinter of WCOG that does not do this?
    Now, I was never a member and have only known some members of several splinters, but I have read reams of material written by ministers of the splinters and they are, at the core, out for themselves. Some are, seemingly, out for their constituents as well to a degree, with the noted exception of Ron who it would seem could care less about his sheep except as a back board to throw blame and extract money from, but all the others are indeed heaping glory upon themselves. “Gods only True Church”, “I am the only one speaking Gods true Word”, “I am the only one who will give you Gods Word”, “Our church is the only church that is Gods Church”, any of these horrible statements ring a bell? These men who rules these churches are like all men of power, they want more power and they heap self glory and self righteousness upon themselves to gain it.

    How repulsive!

  • Mike (DDTFA) says:

    Aggie said: “Armstrongism taints everything it touches, and everything that touches it”

    I guess that includes you and me, as we’ve both been touched by it.

    Armstrongism is a compilation of pieces of other religions. Can you point to any of Herbie’s doctrines that he didn’t borrow from someone else and modify slightly?

  • angel says:

    relocated from the other post
    Mal,

    Reading your post above, with scriptures containing numbers that you capitalized for emphasis brought to mind the movie “A Beautiful Mind”. In particular the scenes in which John Nash saw random words in newspapers and magazines that he believed were secret codes encrypted by enemy telecommunications. John Nash was schizophrenic, yet he came to the realization that he was delusional when it was shown to him that his hallucinations were false.

    I’m not saying you’re crazy, but I think what you’re doing isn’t rational in the face of the fact that Ron’s attempts to predict the timing of future events on numbers found in the Bible have failed. When you finally wake up to this, I hope you’ll realize that his wrong interpretation of the Bible doesn’t prove it wrong. Two wrong interpretations would not prove it wrong; an infinite number of wrong interpretations would not prove any book wrong because what we’re talking about is opinions about what the writer’s intent was. The information contained within a book should stand or fall on its own merits, not a faulty interpretation.

    You’re an intelligent person; you don’t need to look for the person who has the “right” interpretation, you’ve got a mind of your own and the document in question in front of you – just because there are people out there who have taken it upon themselves to decide theirs is the only “right” one doesn’t mean you have to believe that.

  • Mal says:

    angel

    I didn’t totally understand your post but, with regard to your ‘movie’ analogy, this is my position on Scripture:

    1) Scripture works the way Isaiah 28:9,10 says it works; that there are deeper understandings that come by ‘taking a little from here and a little from there’.

    2) God does not put information in Scripture that is superfluous. For example, when Scripture says “After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John up into a high mountain and was transfigured before them”, there is a reason the Holy Spirit included the words “after SIX days” in the text. Those words are not there just to ‘pad out’ Scripture.

    3) God has a special reason for using specific numbers in Scripture. Their use is not random. The numbers six and seven are typical examples.

    There are many ‘types and shadows’ I see in Scripture to support ‘God’s seven thousand year plan’. Whether Ron Weinland is false or not does not affect my belief in that. The few examples I gave of the use of number six have not, to my knowledge, been quoted by RW in his books or sermons.

    What I consider that I see or don’t see in Scripture is between me and God. Similarly, what you consider you see or don’t see in Scripture is between you and God.

  • angel says:

    Mal,

    I don’t doubt that scripture contains things that have a deeper meaning upon closer study; what I do doubt is someone who sees deeper meaning in the smallest details that may not have deeper meaning, and believe or imply God showed it to them. When their seeing deeper meaning in a small detail results in them following a false prophet, I REALLY doubt they have good discernment and a special understanding of scripture that the rest of us don’t have.

    Just because you think the phrase “after six days” means something more than what is clearly being stated doesn’t mean it really does. It may or it may not, and you may or may not have a good understanding of the significance of it, but again, if you think numbers can be used to predict the timing of future events – all I can say is it’s failed every time. I don’t think God randomly put anything in the Bible, but I do think you may be randomly seeing things in scripture and thinking they mean more than they really do. If every time you see the numbers 6 or 7 you think God is trying to tell you something about end times….

    If you believe what you see/don’t see in scripture is just between you and God; why are you sharing it then? Scripture says you should be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you – if you believe understanding the significance of numbers in the Bible is important – you should be able to explain why. You’re certainly entitled to believe whatever you want, but the fact is that your belief in the 7,000 year plan and fascination with numbers in the Bible have led you listen to people like HWA and Ron and you don’t seem to realize the implications of that.

  • Mal says:

    That’s fair enough, angel. I accept your right (or anyone else’s) to challenge the validity of ‘God’s 7000 year plan’.

    If I responded further, it would only be a repeat of what I have already said. So I’m happy to accept that our viewpoints are different.

  • Kirrily XPKG says:

    I first learned of the 7 thousand year plan with Barry Smith (Dead – Rapture was to be in 2000), also Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer etc etc ALSO believe in the 7000 year plan.

    Whatever……..

  • angel says:

    Kirrily,

    There are variations on the idea of 7,000 years being part of God’s plan, but to be clear, what I’m referring to when speaking with Mal is his agreement with Ron’s version. Not everyone believes keeping the Sabbath, God’s Law, etc. are part of that plan.

  • angel says:

    Just a side note; I don’t agree with and wouldn’t waste my time listening to Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar or Joyce Meyer.

  • Kirrily Xpkg says:

    Hey Angel, yeah I understand. I guess my main point to Mal is that so what about the 7000 year plan – HEAPS of others believe that too.

    Again, by things coming to pass exactly as Ronnie said they would, was meant to rid the confusion (of those searching), that we would FINALLY know who to listen to.

    Well, I know not to listen to Ron 🙂

  • Aggie says:

    “I guess that includes you and me, as we’ve both been touched by it.”

    …And your point is? Of course that includes you and me! But I’ve always said that…

  • Aggie says:

    “So I’m happy to accept that our viewpoints are different.”

    Another reason why you would automatically be rejected from ANY Church of God group, Mal; as far as they’re concerned, it’s “God’s Way” or no way at all (the second death)!

  • Aggie says:

    “I first learned of the 7 thousand year plan with Barry Smith (Dead – Rapture was to be in 2000), also Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer etc etc ALSO believe in the 7000 year plan.”

    All of which POST-DATED the church, thank you. Armstrongism put the idea into the public consciousness, and when the church imploded, its members scattered outwards like virus cells, infecting all that they came in touch with; this is particularly clear to see, from Messianic Judaism, “Hebrew Roots” Christians, Sacred Namists, and Christian Identity groups, all of which the church was a precursor for….

  • Kirrily Xpkg says:

    I don’t give a rip who came up with it first. Again, my point is that there are elements of all sorts or beliefs, in all different types of relegions. My point is, IMO, that ALL relegion is a mass of confusion with all types of beliefs fro
    a myriad of different belief systems – keeping the bits they like and tossing the rest.

    Again, COG, no matter which splinter, is no different from any other belief system I have been involved in. So what if someone believes Saturday over Sunday etc etc. Now, for me, they are all the same.

    Who is the author of confusion again? Chasing God has led me to one too many false prophets. Ronnie will be my last.

  • angel says:

    Kirrily,

    It CAN seem very confusing, I grant you; I understand your frustration. And I would agree that picking and choosing what scriptures you like and which you don’t is in large part what causes much of the confusion. Alot of the pressure to believe a certain way, though, goes away when you’re not listening to someone who insists you must believe exactly the way they do. When you exercise the freedom to think for yourself you can cut through the bull and examine things thru your own eyes and with your own mind.

    I personally don’t think all religious beliefs are just mass confusion; I’ve studied a few and find great differences among them which actually makes it easier, IMO, to decide which ones I think lack credible evidence.

    I’m glad to hear Ron is your last false prophet; whether you choose to believe the Bible or not, it’s never a good idea to let others do your thinking for you.

  • Kirrily Xpkg says:

    Thanks Angel. I don’t know where I will be in my beliefs this time next year. To be honest, I always had a problem with the idea of ‘God and Me’ because there IS so many different beliefs out there! They ALL tell you to read the bible, they ALL tell you to read it as is, in context etc – yet they all believe differently.

    That’s why I got attracted to the Gods Government on earth – so you can be told what to do. I see that it’s kind of a cop
    out now.

    Anyway, I know I still need time out, and maybe it will be that way for good.

    I still believe that God exists, as for the rest – I don’t know.

  • Debbie says:

    Hi Kirrily – I totally relate with what you are posting – Many times throughout my life I have been “out of touch” with religious practice & god – I always had a yearning to search & find god and thus a meaning for my life

    Since my experience with Ronald Weinland & PKG I have had a change of approach and attitude toward man’s religions and their gods

    Through my continued investigations I am finding my mind opening to different attitudes towards the bible and god other than what I had believed for most of my life – surprisingly I discovered that some of the things I believed with all my heart at one time are no longer true to me

    I have found that the questions that I had re: bible & god while I was involved in religion are being answered

    I find, for me, this it is a continual process – one which allows me to love myself more and thus allows me to love others more and allow them to love me as well – with less guilt, less pride and less ego

    I am no longer ‘righteous’ – I am me – I just ‘am’ and for me, that is a good place to be –