Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from sagebrushstumper Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 14:35 (Agree/Disagree?) This will be my final post on MovingOn, steam. In speaking with some folks in the chat room last night, I realized I had been rather rude to barge in here as I have. This site was established for a purpose and I didn't give that consideration, so I do apologize. I also suffered sexual abuse as a child, though not in a cult, so there is some empathy. You needn't point out any differences, I'm aware of them. I will continue my research about the Family, however, so I will keep this site bookmarked. In reading about Ricky Rodgriguez and visiting the website his wife established, his reaction to what happened to him in his life made something very clear to me. In one sense, he was treated as an experiment, and great care was given by his keepers in seeing it to it that what they wanted to be normal was presented to Ricky as being normal. They asserted that nurture and not nature is man's fundamental problem, and they believed they could raise up children who, properly conditioned to their doctrines and sexual practices, would be "revolutionary". If that should have worked on anybody, it should have worked on Ricky, insualted in his early years as he was from outside mores and customs. I will not address the fact that it was his beginning to think for himself that led to his rejection of the cult, though that is true. I am looking at his actual rage. Does it not say to us that there are actual acts committed by men and women which are in themselves wrong and destructive to our spirits? It was not just David Berg's doctrines that were wrong. Also wrong is the idea that human beings shape what is right and wrong through environment. Things along the lines of the crimes done against Ricky are real crimes, crimes of nature. They are destructive to the human spirit. These crimes I call sins. I believe sin exists. I believe that the destructive effects of sin are a good indication that the Bible is on course in it judgment of them as sin. There are fixed natural laws relating to the human spirit, a true basis of right and wrong. This I have become convinced of, and its one reason I believe in a Divine Law. These demented people made up a social and religious dogma to justify their perverted desires, and they then set about proving them by trying to raise up a new breed of person. That breed does not exsist. Then again, maybe I gave those monsters too much credit. Maybe they didn't have any aim of producing a new breed, maybe they just wanted playthings. That Zerby did this to her own offspring is the most tragic thing I have ever learned. I am deeply sorry for Ricky and for everyone who was affected this way. I can almost--almost--understand what he did. I could not do that to another human being, but in case any Family leaders peruse this site, let me digress and say to them: If one of you molested my child I would not stab you to death but I would probably kill you with a gun. I truly feel Zerby and others deserve to die, and in another better day, they would have died for these crimes. David berg would have been killed if America hadn't blown its own brains out on dope and liberalism in the 60's, and I will go on record saying I'm sorry that all child molestors can't be gunned down like dogs in the street. Is this spiritual? No, but I love my kids, I would kill and be killed to protect them. I hope no one ever tests me on that because if I've ever told truth in mylife I'm telling the truth right now. The government that allowed this to happen and keeps allowing it is off the scale scum. They are complicit in these crimes. When I think of the pedophiles hiding in TF behind their twisted little doctrines and their legal manueverings, I wish death upon every one of them and I hope it comes swiftly. God help you if you ever poke your ugly head up in Idaho because we will by God deal with you in the correct manner. I can go a long way in standing up for religious movements being allowed to dictate child rearing practices, but I will draw the line at sexual abuse and beatings. Since Washington DC is mostly filled with pedophiles and perverts, small wonder they don't lift a hand. To the rest of you, forgive me for the vitriol in these comments. Johnny Walker, take care. I wish all of you well. (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Thursday, February 22, 2007, 16:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you for taking the time to understand us. The fact that you have done so despite your opposing beliefs in religious (and possibly other) matters demonstrates a notable distinction in your character and is greatly appreciated. I understand if you feel it is best for you to not participate on this forum. In my opinion, you have been respectful of our space and I would welcome further conversation with you any day just as I have enjoyed the brief discussions we have had so far. I, too, wish you all the best.(reply to this comment)

From cassy Thursday, February 22, 2007, 14:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you. Your post is appreciated and I believe your intentions are good and well meant. No matter who or where, I admire good parents and those who love and protect their children. If only I could hear my father say what you just said. Your children are lucky.(reply to this comment)

from sagebrushstumper Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 11:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Falcon, Steam, Oddie, Fish, Cassy and others who have replied, thank you, you sound genuine and sincere. A brief response is here offered, and in thankfulness for the Internet, which is unique in its offerings as a forum with which to discuss important questions with interesting and qualified people. My opinion: Reason and rationality as a sole medium of believing or not believing in things is simply the doctrine of Materialism. If Materialism is true, there is no world but the one we can see and perceive through our senses. I’m sure that view is as old as the human race, but it was systematically set down on paper in the 19th century by certain German thinkers. That the Materialist view is true is a matter accepted by total faith by it adherents, faith as blind as that of any religious person. Materialism forms the basis of the communist and socialist ideology, as well as atheism. In contrast to Materialism stands Metaphysics or belief in another, spiritual world outside of the material realm. I admit this world must be allowed by faith alone, but I repeat to you that there is a huge body of testimony through the ages of millions of people, including myself, who claim to have experienced this world in various ways that defy reason and rationality in the conventional sense. People have claimed physical healings, personal transformation, prophetic confirmations, hearing and seeing spiritual beings, etc.—in short, supernatural experiences. I personally have been physically healed, and that instantaneously, during a Pentecostal healing service I attended in Meridian, Idaho where 20 other people also claimed healings. I know personally, of course, that my testimony is true. Who are you to say it was not God who healed me? If you answer “I’m not saying God didn’t heal you” then you have no argument with me at all. If you claim some other medium healed me, such as the human mind or so forth, you are being hypocritical, because that is a non-Materialist view and reason and rationality cannot produce any answer of how that works. What is the realm and mechanism by which those unseen forces work? Certainly none that can be seen. The minute that you acknowledge that there is possibly another place beyond the physical, material world—eternity, Heaven, Hell, the world of angels and demons, or let us say whatever sort of world you personally care to imagine—you must acknowledge that it lies beyond reason and it lies beyond rational thought alone. As for God’s character in the Old Testament, both OT and NT teaches that God’s real personality, purposes, and even His Name were not visible before Christ. God was perceived by the ancients, including Israel, in a limited way, though to them was given the revelation that He was One. I have studied ancient History, and I give much of my time to its study, and while I’m not an expert, I know something of the nations which Israel was told to destroy. The naked fact is that if Israel had not dealt with them as Moses commanded, Israel would have been so dealt with in short order by those very people. Simply put, that’s how it was back then. Israel is an earthly program, the Church a heavenly. What they did was necessary to their national survival because that was the order of the day. God allowed for this practical fact. Have you not also read how in the Mosaic Law, He commanded Israel to receive the stranger, to treat him kindly? He urged force against those nations whom he knew it was necessary to use force against, but when you compare the Mosaic law with other ancient creeds, it is far more humane. It must be remembered that the change for man which God desired was still future at that time. As for why I believe the Bible is unique in its claim to be the Word of God, may I offer an excellent book which delves into the matter in a very scholarly fashion. “God’s Infallible Word” by David K. Bernard. Mr. Bernard has many qualifications that permit him to join the debate at its academic levels, and I really think that many of you would like the book. It is published by Word Aflame Press, publishing house of the United Pentecostal Church International. It answers many questions about the Bible. Interesting fact from this book: Of the World’s major religions, there are only two bodies of assembled ancient religious writings which make the claim that they are the Word of God, the Koran and the Bible. So if one is looking for Truth, and assumes God has spoken to Man through such channels (otherwise, he would seem very cruel, hiding Himself from us), their search is narrowed! Mormonism is not one of the ancient religions and has only the claims of one man to stand upon. The Book of Mormon also claims to be the Word of God but stands or falls upon Joseph Smith. I hope you will at least admit the Bible has a much broader foundation than that, being as it was written over a period of 2,500 years, has above sixty different authors, and holds a large body of M.S. evidence. Of course we do not have the original manuscripts written by the authors’ own hands, but there is an abundance of ancient texts. BrotherBernard’s book brings out the fact that of Julius Ceasar’s History of the Gaelic Wars, there are 20 extant manuscripts which appear 900years after their original basis. Herodotus’ History has only 8 M.S., which are based upon the autograph that was written 1,350 years before. The speeches of Demosthenes are contained in 200 M.S. and the earliest was copied from its lost predecessor 1,400 years after those speeches first began to circulate. The New Testament writings in our current canon have been discovered in no less than 5,366 M.S. and most of these date to only 150 years after the events described therein. Fragments have been discovered which date to 30 or 50 years after the autographs. This is evidence, not blind faith, as you request, and I think you can see that Brother Bernard has done his homework and even if you do not believe his faith, you can acknowledge his honesty and scholastic integrity. I wasn’t brief—forgive me. (reply to this comment)

From steam Thursday, February 22, 2007, 11:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Here is the problem with what you said which I quote "In contrast to Materialism stands Metaphysics or belief in another, spiritual world outside of the material realm. I admit this world must be allowed by faith alone, but I repeat to you that there is a huge body of testimony through the ages of millions of people, including myself, who claim to have experienced this world in various ways that defy reason and rationality in the conventional sense.". This is true, and there are almost as many different beliefs based on these subjective experiences as the experiences themselves. Which is why if you are seeking a external "truth" i.e. something that can be considered objectively true to several seperate observers you need to be stating something that can be tested. Otherwise the only honest approach when sharing your faith with others is to say that your personal experiences have lead you to conclusions that are based on emotions etc but they work for you. However you are not holding out an external "truth" that would be true for everyone. You reject seeking a logical basis for finding truth, yet you resort to (weak) logic to create validity for the Bible. I say the logic there was weak because you sought historical evidence for age and human authorship of the Bible which carries no wieght on whether it's teachings are true. In addition you saying that God was not fully revealed prior to the new testament, does not account for his many slaughters that I could list, that have nothing to do with kill or be killed. The Bible does not record Jesus speaking out about the old testament interpretations being false grotesque distortions of God.I will give you this point entirely "The minute that you acknowledge that there is possibly another place beyond the physical, material world—eternity, Heaven, Hell, the world of angels and demons, or let us say whatever sort of world you personally care to imagine—you must acknowledge that it lies beyond reason and it lies beyond rational thought alone." However that is no guide for a seeker of truth. It is a fantastic tool for a maniacal cult leader. You basically are saying that becuase right now science has areas it has no answers for, we should seek the answers from our feelings which given the many religions of the world will lead to many fights over things no one has any reason to think they are more right on than others. It seems to me you can say you are a Christian because it is "true" and use logic to try to show why (which you have admited is impossible). Or you can say I am a Christian becuase it feels right to me, in which case you should happily admit others should believe what feels right to them.(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 12:20 (Agree/Disagree?) One last thing: If you take a look at http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/ and read all of the material found there (ignoring some of his hyperbole) you may come to a better understanding of why I reject your flavor of religion as the ultimate. When you understand why you reject the gods of other religions, you will understand why I reject yours.(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 12:12 (Agree/Disagree?) You said: "If you claim some other medium healed me, such as the human mind or so forth, you are being hypocritical, because that is a non-Materialist view and reason and rationality cannot produce any answer of how that works." Perhaps you should expand your knowledge of the human body's capabilities. The brain itself has amazing capacities to cure the body and release chemicals into the system to reverse the effects of a disease. A belief in miraculous and supernatural healings a few hundred years ago can be excused, but with modern science and biology as advanced as it is, miracles have lost the element of magic they once had. A supernatural healing would be something along the lines of a severed limb growing back fully. Healing itself of cancer is or other terminal diseases is something the body can do without supernatural influence. If you want us to take your arguments seriously, your going to have to demonstrate a better knowledge of both sides of the debate than you have so far.(reply to this comment)

from . Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 07:43 (Agree/Disagree?) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1425045877181913152&q=jordan+maxwell (reply to this comment)

from sagebrushstumper Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 23:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Greetings. I have no connection or relationship to the Family. I have been reading up, however. I have made an exmaination of your site and it seems manifest that a symptom of coming out of this cult is a loss of any personal faith, almost an anti-God position. Am I getting that wrong? I don't claim to know the beliefs of every ex-family member, but I have gathered this perception by reading the articles on this board and seeing very little if any religious feeling and a good deal to the contrary. Is this accurate to say? I am a Christian and a minister, and attend a church that preaches somewhat fundamental beliefs and standards, but I do not feel any spiritual or mental slavery. Do you allow for the possibility that God is real, and that not everyone who believes that and has experienced Him is misled? Thanks for any reply. (reply to this comment)

From Fish Monday, February 19, 2007, 15:16 (Agree/Disagree?) "... for a little we live, and life hath mutable wings. A little while and we die; shall life not thrive as it may? For no man under the sky lives twice, outliving his day. And grief is a grievous thing, and a man hath enough of his tears: Why should he labour, and bring fresh grief to blacken his years ? Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean; the world has grown grey from thy breath; We have drunken of things Lethean, and fed on the fullness of death." http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/swinburne/hymn.html (reply to this comment)

From steam Monday, February 19, 2007, 13:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Tell good sir why do you consider The Bible to be the word of "God"? Why do you not consider the holy books of other religions to be the same? I would venture to say that every single reason you give for your faith in the Bible, is essentially the same one as many adherents of another faith would give for their holy writings. On the flip side every reason you give to dismiss the others holy writings such as the Koran, Baghavad Gita, the Titpitaka, the Granth Sahib, the Theravada etc a very similar case can be made in regards to the Bible. Find a compelling unique reason either for the Bible or against another major holy book please. I have a great deal of respect for many sincerely religious people, but any "deep" discussion seems to take place on a "witnessing" level. By that I mean the religious person expects me to open up to their possibilities with a completely open mind, removing any pre-concieved notions. While they gaurd themselves from any viewpoints that might shake their faith. Considering them dangerous devices the devil wants to use to turn them from faith. Another way to put it is they want you to start out with "the Christian God might be real" but they will not start with "everything I believe might be a complete lie". Why not? Will you publicly state "the God I believe in might just be a lie and my faith might just be a complete delusion"? Are you open to that possibility?(reply to this comment)

From Oddie Monday, February 19, 2007, 14:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Well written as always, Steam. I said the same thing in chat, though perhaps not as eloquently. It is truly amusing how ardent followers of all religions give identical reasons for why their books are sacred, and others not. (reply to this comment)

From I think Monday, February 19, 2007, 11:09 (Agree/Disagree?) religions (more extreme in cults) all have the componants to mislead, control and make people go against their own consciense in the name of the lord. It renders you helpless. This is how they do it--- cause disorientation----regress to a childlike sate using fear and love bombing (conditional love) then become the parent. Now you have a conrolable person or sheep. (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Sunday, February 18, 2007, 00:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I allow for the possibility that the Christian god is real, just as I allow for the possibility that the gods of any other religion may be real. Losing my faith was not an overnight process. When I left The Family, I decided to find out exactly what it was I believed in and why. Over the course of 2 years I researched and studied the history of Christianity, Judaism, and several other religions in search of the foundation of my faith. Unfortunately, all I discovered was that those in power will always anthropomorphise the concept of God to their advantage and benefit. You have to understand, we basically grew up in an environment where we watched an entire religion being built from the ground up. When you get that kind of a glimpse of the "man behind the curtain", it's difficult to accept any religion as the ultimate truth.(reply to this comment)

From Falcon Sunday, February 18, 2007, 04:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Anybody can be spiritually enslaved, not just Christians. I do not disbelieve, just as I do not believe. As JW pointed out, we have had a first hand view of the politics behind a rising religion. From my time spent in the group, I memorized most of the Bible, and have a vast working knowledge of the many concepts and interpretations of the book.--and the Bible does have many, believe me! From my life spent in the group, and speaking with many types of Christians and sects outside of it, my conclusion is that, anybody can twist that book to suit their own purposes. For every verse pro something, there are two against and vice-a-versa. It would be small minded to say that one god is the only god, just as it would be small minded not to allow for the possibility that there are no gods at all. It takes faith to believe in god. Well, I can tell you that The Family has helped to strip away any faith I may have had. I now look for hard evidence. I would rather err on the side of analysing everything through scientific proof, than blindly believe in something for no better reason than that somebodies somewhere, we don't know exactly who, but we're sure they were God inspired, wrote a book that contradicts itself most of the time, but who cares? God wrote it--through men, mind you--but we know it's God because, somebody said so. Since leaving I have studied religion and their origins and there are some shocking truths about the way religion has been created and used to manipulate people and enslave their minds. Christianity itself, at one point, was the biggest reason for keeping people in the dark ages, burning men of science--men who were working to advance the planet. Calling science "witchcraft" and other such nonsense. Do you yourself know the actual roots of Christianity? How well have you studied a religion which you dedicate your life to? Most people don't want to look, because if they did, it would shake the very foundation of their beliefs. I challenge you to read a book called 'The Templar Revelation'. If after reading that, you still believe that the origins of Christianity really started wtih Jesus Christ, then come back here, and we'll have a further discussion. Very best regards either way.(reply to this comment)

From sagebrushstumper Sunday, February 18, 2007, 16:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Falcon: You said it would be small minded to allow for only One God, or to allow the possibility of none. Who says so? The standard of logic and reason can no more disprove than prove God. It remains to be seen if logic or reason are end in themselves or the legitimate criteria when it comes to God. How could a finite and supernatural God be understood by finite minds and their limited reasoning abilities? If God is real, and supernatural, beyond time and space, as the Bible claims he is, we wouldn't be able to percieve him through logic or reason or our five senses. Men have yet to prove that to be the only acceptable formula, and cannot say there is no such thing as revelation. Millions say they have received revelation in their spiritual center that God exists and He has dealings with them. Let us small human beings not get so puffed up as to deny such a medium exists. I might check into Templar Revelation. But if it contains the usual Masonic take that paganism gave rise to Christianity, I would dissent whole heartedly. The early Church would not have suffered so horribly, as History realtes they did, if they had any spiritual or doctrinal kinship with paganism. Paganism was later mixed with the apostolic teachings of the primitive Church, resulting in the abberations that continue even to the perverted and blasphemous teachings of David Berg. Finally, let me offer a revolutionary idea about the dark Ages: We didn't have a dark Ages because men insisted upon the Bible as the sole source of knowledge but because of their ignorance of it. They did not become so superstitious by knowing and following the teachings of the Bible but because they had no idea what those teachings were, since most were uneducated and could not read Greek or Latin. Following the reformation and even during, Bibles produced in the common tongues of various people led to a widespread instruction of what the Bible said. This Bible literacy BROKE, not perpetuated, the reign of priests. The Reformation and its thorough investigation of the Word of God led not to spiritual slavery but to liberation, and it was the Biblically fundamentalist West of the 19th and 20th centuries that produced so many of the scientific leaps we take for granted today. Amazing isn't it--the old republic, so racist, so homophobic, so sexist (fill in liberal smear on the USA)but so steeped in Christian tradition and teaching became the most advanced nation on earth! And we were supposedly ignorant then! Go figure. I'm sorry--I'm only responding as some have repsonded to me. Logic and reason don't suffer where the Bible is preached and taught--My God, David Berg taught so many things that outright contradicted the Bible, as Ricky Rodriguez himself pointed out in some of his writings, that I think anyone who learned what the Bible taught would know that what they were hearing was not anything remotely close to God's Word. The people close to all of those terrible things and who perpetrated it were certainly not lovers of God. My take: Christianity and the COG have nothing whatsoever in common. (reply to this comment)

From Otter Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 15:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Have you ever stopped to think of the millions killed in the name of christianity. Do you really think you can look your god in the face when you die & say you did what he said in your religion. Never once in the new testament does it say to clean the Earth of all wickedness or pagans, but that's exactly what christians have done since they came to power. They started their religious power by slaughtering thousands of pagans. Did you ever think that maybe why your religion doesn't have the same powers as mentioned in the bible (e.g. healing, etc.) because you stopped doing what you founder said to heal the sick & suffer long. I am almost certain that your power left you the minute your religion took up arms & slaughtered the unbelievers. There is only one time in the bible when your founder got violent & that was in the temple with the money changers. Even when faced with "demons" in people he never hit or swore at them or killed them. I really think you all have a lot to answer your god when you see him and I don't think he is going to say "Well done". (reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Monday, February 19, 2007, 14:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Correlation doesn't imply causation. Just because our nation was Christian at the time of these advancements does not mean you can attribute industrial and scientific developments to Christianity and the Bible. (reply to this comment)

From Falcon Monday, February 19, 2007, 07:08 (Agree/Disagree?) It seems a radical contradiction, that on the one hand you say "How could a infinite (you actually called god finite) and supernatural God be understood by finite minds and their limited reasoning abillities? If god is real, and supernatural, beyond time an space, as the Bible claims he is, we wouldn't be able to perceive him through logic or reason or with our five senses' and you then go on to say that 'millions say they have received revelation in their spiritual center that God exists and He has dealings with them.' If God is so above our understanding, then how is it people are communicating with him? And how do you even know it's a 'him'? A male God is a complete human interpretation of what they don't even know! 'Let us small human beings not get so puffed up as to deny such a medium exists'. I would put it to you rather, let us human beings not get so puffed up as to claim that they have dealings with some omnipotent being! Why would God, if he was so big and powerful, even care to have any kind of communication with stupid little man. That would be like saying that you wish to have close communication with a germ, or an ant. That would be the comparison ratio. And believe me, even if you did want to communicate with that ant, and you got down on all fours and shouted to it, do you think the ant is even aware of your pressence, much less can hear you???? Ha, that makes me laugh! But apparently in the Christian Bible, God really does take an intimate interest in the doings of man. If he gets pissed off so easily that he is constantly killing his creation, well, I'm sorry, that's a very petty God. Not very big and powerful, if a few minute little human beings can piss him off enough to start wiping them out every time they don't do exactly what he says. Anger, rage, vengeance and destruction are a very human reactions. So much for a freedom of choice, for that matter! That's another contradiction of the Bible--"He" is supposed to be a loving God, yet is constantly killing people for not obeying him. Sounds more like an authoritarian Hitler to me. And wow! What power we humans have if we can sway the emotions of God that easily! So God is both the "Creator" and the "Destroyer". That sounds like he's God and the Devil in one! Excuse me, but no true creator would want to destroy their own creation. That just doesn't add up! I am simply trying to show you why I refuse to follow a murdering God--even if "He" did exist. This is not the Berg God either that I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fundamental Christian God. Next point, on what grounds are you basing America as the most advanced nation on earth?? Sounds like a load of American propaganda to me! America is the nation with the most debt on this planet, a huge poverty ratio, and where the children, next to Britain are rated the most unhappy in the world. Or are you perhaps judging your greatness by your military strength? What does that say about your 'Christian' president waging war on every country he deems a "threat", bombing innocent civilians and invading countries it has no right to invade like a big bully--ignoring the UN rights and Geneva convention when it interferes with it's agenda. Oh yes! Go Christian America! God is on your side, right? Of course God is! He's a murderer too! Hey Ho! Yeehaw! Logic and reason aren't suffering? In whose eyes? Your own? Americas? Well their "logic and reason" are causing the rest of the world to suffer, and let me tell you, no one else on earth thinks of America as a great nation except America. There are none so blind as those who will not see. But I will agree with you on this one point: Christianity and the COG have nothing in common. Does that make either of them right? I dare to disagree. At the end of the day, I will live my life with honour, pride, honesty and concern for those less fortunate than myself. Then if I die and discover there really is a God, well, I'll have lived my life the best I could and "he'll" have no reproof to offer me.(reply to this comment)

From Oddie Monday, February 19, 2007, 14:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Couldn't have said it better, Falcon. Except I think Christianity (or some brands of) and the COG/TF have plenty in common.(reply to this comment)

From Falcon Monday, February 19, 2007, 14:15 (Agree/Disagree?) You're right, on further thought, they do have plenty in common as far as mind control goes. The cult however, uses a bizarre mix of Christian fundamentalism and paganism. Ah, anyway, two wrongs don't make a right and neither are right, both are harmful in different ways. (reply to this comment)

From idiots anonymous Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 05:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Two wrongs don't make a right, but three consecutive lefts certainly do!(reply to this comment)

From Falcon Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 07:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Haaaaaa(reply to this comment)

From cassy Monday, February 19, 2007, 10:23 (Agree/Disagree?) I might add that America may be dominating the world right now, just as the empires of before, Roman, Greek, Eygptian, etc. But would you say their religous beliefs were what caused them to be the most advanced of their day? - They certainly weren't Christian. I would offer that perhaps there are other reasons - access to natural resources, maybe more greedy than their neighbours, power hungry, ambitious, greater military strength, etc. It's interesting that the countries that consistantly come out on top in less crime, less teenage pregnanies, more family friendly and caring for their population, well educated and environmentaly friendly are the scandinavian countries - and they are the most permissive and openminded countries. What I have found is that regardless of religious belief, there are people who are decent, hardworking and have morals, and those who are are not. The good we see in the world is due to the first set, and the problems created by the other. The religion of those individuals do not make that person 'good' or 'bad' (though I don't like to use black and white definitions for people either - there is plenty of grey area). -- There are other important and scientifically tested factors such as family enviroment, attachment patterns to the primary carer of the child, genetics, and chemical balances/imbalances. The basic Christian beliefs of caring, selfless behaviour and doing to others as you would they do to you, are not a Christian only concept but are shared in almost all religions. These qualities I hold dear, regardless of how they are packaged.(reply to this comment)

From sagebrushstumper Sunday, February 18, 2007, 16:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Falcon: You said it would be small minded to allow for only One God, or to allow the possibility of none. Who says so? The standard of logic and reason can no more disprove than prove God. It remains to be seen if logic or reason are end in themselves or the legitimate criteria when it comes to God. How could a finite and supernatural God be understood by finite minds and their limited reasoning abilities? If God is real, and supernatural, beyond time and space, as the Bible claims he is, we wouldn't be able to percieve him through logic or reason or our five senses. Men have yet to prove that to be the only acceptable formula, and cannot say there is no such thing as revelation. Millions say they have received revelation in their spiritual center that God exists and He has dealings with them. Let us small human beings not get so puffed up as to deny such a medium exists. I might check into Templar Revelation. But if it contains the usual Masonic take that paganism gave rise to Christianity, I would dissent whole heartedly. The early Church would not have suffered so horribly, as History realtes they did, if they had any spiritual or doctrinal kinship with paganism. Paganism was later mixed with the apostolic teachings of the primitive Church, resulting in the abberations that continue even to the perverted and blasphemous teachings of David Berg. Finally, let me offer a revolutionary idea about the dark Ages: We didn't have a dark Ages because men insisted upon the Bible as the sole source of knowledge but because of their ignorance of it. They did not become so superstitious by knowing and following the teachings of the Bible but because they had no idea what those teachings were, since most were uneducated and could not read Greek or Latin. Following the reformation and even during, Bibles produced in the common tongues of various people led to a widespread instruction of what the Bible said. This Bible literacy BROKE, not perpetuated, the reign of priests. The Reformation and its thorough investigation of the Word of God led not to spiritual slavery but to liberation, and it was the Biblically fundamentalist West of the 19th and 20th centuries that produced so many of the scientific leaps we take for granted today. Amazing isn't it--the old republic, so racist, so homophobic, so sexist (fill in liberal smear on the USA)but so steeped in Christian tradition and teaching became the most advanced nation on earth! And we were supposedly ignorant then! Go figure. I'm sorry--I'm only responding as some have repsonded to me. Logic and reason don't suffer where the Bible is preached and taught--My God, David Berg taught so many things that outright contradicted the Bible, as Ricky Rodriguez himself pointed out in some of his writings, that I think anyone who learned what the Bible taught would know that what they were hearing was not anything remotely close to God's Word. The people close to all of those terrible things and who perpetrated it were certainly not lovers of God. My take: Christianity and the COG have nothing whatsoever in common. (reply to this comment)

From Falcon Sunday, February 18, 2007, 08:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Might I also add, that people who are mentally enslaved generally do not think that they are, and usually will vehemently argue that they are not, while displaying all symptoms of enslavement. You cannot force someone to see what they do not want to. Lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink...(reply to this comment)

from Phoenixkidd Friday, February 16, 2007 - 12:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I think your number 6 Rule is definitely the most dangerous and most deviant. If people believe they do have a second chance or an afterlife who's status is measured by your current work for the Lord, cult or spiritual leader it gives people reason to do stupid terrible things in this life....Look at the Kamikaze fighters, the al-kaeda, Jim Jones group etc....They all were so decieved into thinking they would earn merit in the next life they threw away this one. (reply to this comment)

from an apostate Friday, February 16, 2007 - 07:08 (Agree/Disagree?) That list should include delirium bordering on delusion...you need a healthy dose of that to achieve 'spiritual slavery'! (reply to this comment)

from tuneman7 Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 19:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Sad but true. (reply to this comment)