Replies

Set up expecation by comparing to doctrine that is similar on the surface, but different in effect.
No trinity, becoming god, ruling a planet - you have to admit is quite similar to what Mormon's teach.

You have to admit that believing you're eating the real flesh of Christ and drinking his real blood is quite similar to what cannibals do. You have to admit that believing that the pope is God on earth is similar is quite similar to believing that Jim Jones thought he was God on earth.

name one doctrine on United's website that you think was created by Herbert Armstrong and I'll cite proof of it's existence before Armstrong.
Am I understanding you now to be distancing the UCG from Armstrong? I honestly don't get your point here. Would it be a bad thing in your view if UCG's beliefs were the same as Herbert Armstrong?
Or are you saying that Armstrong had the same beliefs as Jesus, or knew Jesus's true message? Something like that? And objecting to my attributing your theology to him instead of "scripture"?

That's pretty much it. You're not so subtly attempting to destroy the theology by avoiding scripture and focusing on Armstrong's commentary and speculation on scripture. You're then putting your spin on his comments. It's akin to me looking up comments from popes or bisops and then making the claim that what you believe is represented by my interpretation of what they say.

The theology that I believe is biblical and stands with or without Armstrong.

You're not so subtly attempting to destroy the theology by avoiding scripture and focusing on Armstrong's commentary and speculation on scripture.

Well that is it. That's the theology of the WWWCG, ETCOG, UCG.. Armstrong's commentary and view of scripture and history. To you there's no or little difference, re:

"I think he popularized biblical truths that had been buried by culture and society. I believe that many sects of Christianity have bits and pieces of truth, but he studied the bible and put these bits and pieces together into a comprehensive teaching that most closely expounds the biblical truth God wishes to convey. It could have been anyone, but God chose to use him to spread the truth."

So I don't think it's unfair since to you, they are the same. I disagree, I think your interpretation is polytheism, but we could play dueling scripture, but scripture isn't the issue between us; it's interpretation.

And note also that for the discussion on Christology I quoted from your church's website.

So, I'm not being unfair, unless Armstrong's views are held to be in error compared with yours and the UCG, which I don't think either of you are saying.