tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post3858304926707044761..comments2024-03-12T11:58:24.510+13:00Comments on Otagosh: A Potted History of WCGGavin Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17965552923012880262noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post-56486690046259130442014-01-04T11:06:17.035+13:002014-01-04T11:06:17.035+13:00I found the article very straightforward, unbiased...I found the article very straightforward, unbiased and factually correct.The Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02327459017793489626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post-38873893204244010132014-01-04T04:40:23.976+13:002014-01-04T04:40:23.976+13:00Tkatch? How could that go unnoticed?
The WCG was...Tkatch? How could that go unnoticed?<br /><br />The WCG was definitely not binitarian as Barrett states. The WCG was polythetistic like the pagan religions of the ancient Middle East. Since it involved two distinct gods numerically, one could refine the definition to bitheism. <br /><br />I recall that Ron Kelly gave a sermon after the 1995 reformation in Armstrongite theology about how the WCG had never been polytheistic. But he found the oneness or unity in the Godhead in the fact that God is a family. This does not cut it. One could call the Greek pantheon a family also. It does not define the kind of unity that would cause us to class Armstrongism as a monotheistic religion. Ironically, the polytheistic Herbert Armstrong always referred to the Trinity as pagan. <br /><br />Neotherm Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08487906691943831671noreply@blogger.com