- Topic
Just read this article today that was posted on a Canadian site. This statement stood out…"The fact that there is no biological necessity for physical life to be given by mothers caused Deacon August Kruesi to wonder: what was God’s will in creating the human life system in this way?"
http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/11/12/god-the-mother-in-the-world-mission-society-church-of-god/
What does he mean by "no biological necessity"? What does he mean by "physical life to be given"? The last time I checked, men can't give birth because they lack a uterus among other things.
The point the speakers and or wms seem to try to make, albeit unclearly, is that because a mother is necessary to reproduce, then there must be a mother god. They have not proven that at all in their article. Of course this only applies to creatures that require a mother and father to reproduce. What do the living organisms that do not require a male and female to reproduce "prove"?
Sounds like a bunch of pseudoscience to me.
What do you guys think?
Simon wrote:
avoiding talking about doctrine they want
supporting your son they don't
it is possible to do both
@Simon – this has been said by others already but it bears repeating. You are different. Should I dare say, you are unique. I have yet to discuss with a single other wmscog member who can actually debate doctrine with an open mind. My observation is that they only want to say but not listen. I have even been told by a member that the debate only makes their faith stronger.
For the last statement, my hunch is that it is a pseudo faith they are attaching themselves to. It is not faith in their doctrine but faith in the idea that they are being persecuted by the debate initiated by satan. This is then emotionally tied to their faith in the wmscog doctrine which is obviously strengthened.
You get the process? They are told that the devil is out there to debate their doctrine. -> We debate with them. -> The wmscog prediction that we will debate comes true -> They believe everything else that the wmscog tells them.
Emil, you worded that way better than I could have! Thank you.
emil wrote:
You get the process? They are told that the devil is out there to debate their doctrine. -> We debate with them. -> The wmscog prediction that we will debate comes true -> They believe everything else that the wmscog tells them.
No they are told we don't and can't debate doctrine and won't do so because we know they are correct
I agree with Simon. The only problem with arguing doctrine with wms members is that not everybody know how to do it nor is very well versed on the scriptures that they use. But there are definitely ways to argue doctrine with wms members and I think that's the most effecient way to make them wake up if you know how to do it. Everything esle they can say "it's a lie from the people in the internet".
Hobbit wrote:
I agree with Simon. The only problem with arguing doctrine with wms members is that not everybody know how to do it nor is very well versed on the scriptures that they use. But there are definitely ways to argue doctrine with wms members and I think that's the most effecient way to make them wake up if you know how to do it. Everything esle they can say "it's a lie from the people in the internet".
Hobbit, you are 100% correct! The only people who can effectively debate doctrine with current members are the ones who lived it as members themselves and know every little detail that has been twisted. Not every ex member can do that. Most can't.
I know someone who can do that
When I used to talk a little with my son on the doctrine, I pointed out the very most basic things and even underlined something in the Spring and Water of Life book where Ahnsahahghong said the only name to be saved under now and forever was Jesus Christ. Nothing. Also showed him 18 verses in the Bible where it says there is only one God. Nothing. If you can't get them to acknowledge even the most basic, straight forward things, how do you get them to acknowledge anything that is open to interpretation? I don't want to discourage anyone who is trying, as I do admire them greatly. I hope by doing this they get into someone's head and push some wmscog garbage out. I felt that my attempts only gave my son more practice at defending the doctrine, and did no good. I stopped talking doctrine.
I think Genny is absolutely superb at refuting their arguments, and I leave it to her and others like her. More power to the people who take this on. And I like the way she does it because she is adamant, yet caring and respectful to all.
Oh, and my son used the "lies on the internet" argument with me too. But I told him I know people personally, have sat down face to face and heard their stories, have talked to them on the phone, have talked to them at conferences, etc. It isn't just the internet that has a lot of gut wrenching stories to tell about the wmscog. It is pretty much everyone who has a loved one trapped in there, and the internet is just where it becomes more obvious.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.