Saturday, May 23, 2015

COG Prophet Claims: The U.S. Debt has been caused by abortions and that bad weather is because of Homosexuals




God's most well informed and greatest Church of God leader ever is back talking about sex again today.  After quoting a long letter from Norm Edwards, the doubly blessed prophet Bob Thiel makes this claim:

I would also add that I believe abortion is a factor in USA debt and the increased acceptance of pornography and the homosexual agenda is a factor in difficult weather.  This is consistent with many biblical prophecies

Using this logic we will soon see the country of Ireland sink into the ocean because the heavily Catholic country voted in gay marriage on Friday.

17 comments:

Connie Schmidt said...

(Warning- Tongue in cheek department!)

Thiel has this all backwards!

It is obvious and self evident that HOMOSEXUALITY is a factor in USA debt
and the increased acceptance of ABORTION is a factor in difficult weather.

NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND AS THIEL PROCLAIMS!

Anonymous said...


“Using this logic we will soon see the country of Ireland sink into the ocean because the heavily Catholic country voted in gay marriage on Friday.”


It is not at all surprising to see Catholics vote for such things. Haven’t they always supported their supposedly celibate but actually sexually active homosexual pedophile priests? Sometimes you meet someone and from the way they always cuss and curse and blaspheme and take the Lord's name in vain all the time you just naturally assume that they are godless and profane, but then you find out that no they're not, they're just Catholic.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the true church that Jesus said He would build.

Anonymous said...


“I would also add that I believe abortion is a factor in USA debt and the increased acceptance of pornography and the homosexual agenda is a factor in difficult weather. This is consistent with many biblical prophecies.”


HWA had taught that the people of Britain and the United States were the descendants of Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh. Joseph's father Jacob (whose name God had changed to Israel) said “let my name be named on them.” Accordingly, countries like Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States can expect that (unless God relents for some reason such as repentance of the people) there certainly will be punishment sooner or later for their increasingly worse sins.

Of more immediate and direct concern to the COG people should be the punishment that they are already suffering right now for unwisely choosing to follow and support all sorts of false ministers, false evangelists, false apostles, false prophets, false witnesses, and false christs. By the time they realise what a fatal, life-wrecking mistake they made, the satanic impostor that they foolishly followed has already drained them of their money and arranged to have their own family members totally abandon them if they even so much as try to say anything about what is happening.

According to HWA's church eras theory we are now in the last of the seven eras, the Laodicean era, and this era will go into a “Great Tribulation” that will cause half of the people to come to their senses. While this might initially seem a bit harsh the fact is that about half of the people in the splinter groups really are just plain evil and malicious. Even the supposedly better half in the splinter groups have learned to behave badly in an attempt to scrape by and save their own selves, and will need to wake up.

Byker Bob said...

Thiel is like a drunken ex-wife. Cue the tape! It won't make any sense this time either, but cue it anyway.

Abortion kills a potential child, and causes angst and mental turmoil. Homosexuals are likely to be mistreated, and must constantly watch their backs. But this stuff doesn't have any national implications. It might if the government required involuntary abortions, or sent people to reeducation camps to experience homosexuality.

Promises made to Joseph's half Egyptian sons have nothing to do with English speaking nations of today. Genetically, that was a non-starter right out of the gate.
And, HWA plagiarized, embellished, and appropriated church eras for his own purposes. William Miller actually taught that the Laodecean era started in the 1840s. British Israelism and church eras are what can only be called "extrabiblical" teachings. They are part of the body of Armstrongist gnosticism, or heresy.

BB

Anonymous said...

Remember when there was some event or other, a political upheaval, or a disaster, or something like that -- remember ol' Herbie getting excited and proclaiming, "Prophecy is speeding up!"

Trouble was, after not too long, "prophecy" slowed down again. The admittedly single big event, which he and others pointed to, was followed by . . . nothing else.

It was just a seizing on news hype to keep the money coming in.

The "signs are there that time is short" monologue goes on. And on. And on.

Anyone gonna send Bitter Bob any money to keep the message going?
I'm not.

Oh, and if you're one of those who still believes in things Herbert, and are thinking you're going to threaten wrath from some god you believe in for things we say -- we've heard all that, too. Please don't bother.

Anonymous said...

well whats good enough for ancient greece and rome is good enough for us...

Black Ops Mikey said...

Just so you know, spoiled milk and spoiled cream are the result of a warlock nearby.

Do not be fooled: Some people will claim that it is the result of bacteria, but that's wrong because it's really because of a warlock.

Anonymous said...

I hereby proclaim that the cause of debt and bad weather is false prophets and apostles. Furthermore, I announce that the California drought is the result of Bob Thiel's false and lying prophecies and his refusal to repent of same.

Finally I prophesy that if Bob were to repent in sackcloth and renounce his sinful ways, hell would freeze over.

Anonymous said...

Love the LGBT-icane. It's faaaabulous!

The rainbow after the storm is god's way of saying it was just a storm, and that he's cool with teh gayz.

Anytime anyone says anything like "According to HWA's..." or "HWA taught..." with an air of seriousness, instead of the ridicule it so richly deserves, my brain goes into an instant coma.

Redfox712 said...

I used to be worried about the US federal debt myself. But then I read up about it and learned that actually as a percentage of GDP the US federal debt was actually higher in the 1940s because of World War II.

But because a dollar was worth so much more then it is easy to not notice this. Back in 1925 making Ben-Hur cost $.5 million. In today's terms that's over $200 million.

Also since the 1940s the US economy has grown so much. The increase in the US economy needs to be taken into account as well. That is why it is more helpful to measure the US Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP instead of panicking over the large numbers without taking inflation and the expansion of the US economy into account.

Another thing if the US Federal Debt was going to bring us under it would have done so in 2008. But the crisis in 2008 was over private debt not public debt.

It is actually not possible for the US to "run out of money" because the US government can simply print money. We with private debt are unable to print currency.

Also unlike Eurozone countries and Argentina in 2001 (which then had its currency pegged to the US dollar) the US has a truly sovereign currency. The US federal debt is denominated in US dollars and it is the US federal government that controls the supply of US dollars. So no one can force the US to default.

(Legislators saying they will not raise the debt ceiling is a separate problem. But that is not caused by the US "running out of money". That's because some people threatened to not do necessary paperwork. Did they know the federal debt was higher per capita in the 1940s?)

There are many problems in the world. There are many reasons to be worried about many things. (Private debt for instance.) But the US Federal Debt is not one of them.

Anonymous said...

"But the US Federal Debt is not one of them."
[with Armstrongism and left-wing or right-wing conspiracies aside]
B.S.! The fed controls our currency, this includes private debt and capital(only if you hold your capital in US dollars) The growth of the American economy is increasingly needing to be funded through credit and NOT capital. If and when the dollar falls, it will be a MAJOR world-wide problem for the world to solve. What will be the new reserve currency? I don't know.
What I am sure of though, is that economic problems have nothing to do with abortion. (Well, unless you look at it from a human resource angle.) And as for the gays, maybe this could be a new approach to weather warfare? HAARP?
Where is my [url=http://postimg.org/image/nqfshtlah/]tinfoil[/url] hat?

Anonymous said...

Well, yes and no. Don't light your pipe and put your slippers just yet.

The facts you've stated are largely true, but it's overlooking the market ramifications, and those are the reasons why the conclusions you're drawing aren’t. The trigger of the financial crisis may have been over private debt, but in finance, risk connects everything and wind up spilling over. While it's true the US can't "run out of money," this is irrelevant. What counts is its value. Currencies collapse when the value of their underlying economy collapses, not when they run out of bills.

When the debt gets to a certain level as a % of GDP, which is the level we're currently at, the servicing of that debt begins to stifle economic growth. That's not really where you want to be, however, we’re on the thin end of that wedge. Japan's debt is quite a bit higher as a % of their GDP, and even then it isn't catastrophic, but still, not where you want to be. Second, the higher your debt, the higher your risk of default and therefore the riskier your debt is and the higher interest rate. When the debt ceiling was raised, US treasuries were downgraded from the highest rating. This didn't have a huge impact, but do we want to go searching for a tipping point?

While no one can force the US to default on its treasuries, the alternative, monetizing the debt is not a great solution. It devalues your currency which essentially robs every holder of US denominated assets of a certain amount of value. When you monetize debt, everybody recognizes this as way of defaulting softly. It's no secret. We've been doing this to pay for the rounds of quantitative easing. We can get away with some of this, and the US dollar is the deepest currency there is, with $40 being overseas for every $1 at home, so we can get away with more of this than most, but you don't want to trigger people to start dumping their dollar denominated assets.

The bigger you are, the harder you can fall. Sovereign or not, the value of the dollar is still based upon supply and demand, and if for some reason, demand for the dollar falls, such as the dollar being diluted by a basket of currencies used to trade oil, or if the market is flooded with dollars that nobody needs, such if China wanted to dump its treasuries, this could cause a cascade, and there's only so much the Fed can do to control the money supply that quickly. As long as changes happen slowly, things will be okay, and our fall will not be that bad. But if things change too fast, then it causes big, uncomfortable problems.

Anonymous said...

Case in point: the financial markets *create* cash through the multiplier effect, similar to the one in the banking system, and the derivatives market created hundreds of billions of dollars that would ultimately prove illusory, which in turn would cause $8 billion in stock market wealth to evaporate as well. The ratings agencies for those MBS assumed those homeowners were going to produce cashflows they couldn't, and when the time came that write-offs and write-down had to be taken, it happened fast, not slowly.

The bottom line is, the US dollar is only as secure as the faith others have in the US economy. And economies are sensitive things. Things like the financial crisis do not do us any favors because they shake faith. And the other bottom line is that debt carries risk. Holders of debt instruments have less recourse than holders of direct foreign debt, but still, if the US were simply to be judged to be defaulting too much by monetizing too much of it's interest payments, the fallout could be *immense.* Thankfully, since everything is connected, our downfall would take everyone else down too, so nobody wants to destabilize our economy. But that still doesn't mean it can't wind up happening.

Finally, the big problem here is that our star is no longer in the ascendant. We're living beyond our means and every month the deficits have to be covered in our trade accounts. Often our trade deficits are offset by surpluses in our foreign direct investment account, but when that investment dries up, we're in deep shit. If trends continue the way they have, which they will, then we will fall from being the top dog. The only question is when and how quickly.

Redfox712 said...

To those who responded:

I am glad you care enough about this topic to respond. Your contribution to this discussion are appreciated.

To 9:21:

The growth of the American economy is increasingly needing to be funded through credit and NOT capital. If and when the dollar falls, it will be a MAJOR world-wide problem for the world to solve. What will be the new reserve currency? I don't know.

The point I would like to restate here is that the US federal debt has been larger before back in the 1940s because of World War II. As indebted as the US is now it was worse back in the 1940s. This indicates to me that whatever problem the US federal debt has now can be solved and managed.

To 11:43,

I admire your response and your passion on this topic. There are a few things I would like to respond to.

When the debt gets to a certain level as a % of GDP, which is the level we're currently at, the servicing of that debt begins to stifle economic growth. That's not really where you want to be, however, we’re on the thin end of that wedge.

That is precisely my point. Whatever the problems the federal debt may have at this point it can be managed. The US was more indebted back in the 1940s and the US is still the No. 1 economy in the world all these years later.

When the debt ceiling was raised, US treasuries were downgraded from the highest rating.

I must respectfully disagree with this assessment of that situation. The downgrade happened because some legislators threatened to not raise the debt ceiling. That is why Standard and Poor's downgraded the debt. If the debt ceiling was raised without any bother the downgrade would not have occurred.

if for some reason, demand for the dollar falls, such as ... if China wanted to dump its treasuries,

I would like to mention here that, as far as I can tell, China only holds about %7 of the US federal debt.

And as for qualitative easing I must confess I never particularly liked that policy. But austerity would be even worse.

Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion.

Anonymous said...

Always a pleasure.

"I must respectfully disagree with this assessment of that situation. The downgrade happened because some legislators threatened to not raise the debt ceiling. That is why Standard and Poor's downgraded the debt. If the debt ceiling was raised without any bother the downgrade would not have occurred."

But that's not the whole story.

True, S&P cited the short-term risk, as the government generally does not retire t-bills, but rolls over the debt by issuing new debt to pay the interest on older t-bills, and if the debt ceiling were not raised, then a default would have occurred. That would have been a financial disaster. However, the fact that congress makes promises to itself like this, and then breaks them, is kind of a policy disaster.

But you must not forget the other reason S&P cited for the downgrade: the lack of a plan to reduce government deficit spending. The short term risk of the debt-ceiling debacle was back in 2011, but S&P has not upgraded t-bills again. Why? Because of the long-term risk. In the short-term, the picture is stable, so for the next two years S&P isn't going to do anything. But over the long term, because the US financial picture is slowly getting riskier and riskier, not safer and safer, it's reaching the point where it's starting to give the markets pause when there's an economic shock. Deficit spending over the long term translates to steadily rising debt which means higher risk over the long-term. So raising the debt ceiling lowered short-term risk, but raised long-term risk.

"I would like to mention here that, as far as I can tell, China only holds about %7 of the US federal debt."

That's not the point. The depth of the money supply cuts both ways. As long as the dollar remains strong, people in general feel comfortable holding dollar denominated assets. But when the dollar weakens, people start to get concerned about the decline in the value of their portfolio vis-à-vis their home currency. China is the largest single holder of US bonds, and if it began a policy of trickling them out, that could lead others to do the same. The Fed cannot simply take those dollars off the market, those dollars must be bought up to reduce the supply and buoy up the strength of the dollar. I hope you can see why printing new dollars to buy others home currencies to use to buy up those dollars doesn't strengthen the dollar. The bonafide way to strengthen the dollar is through strengthening the US trade balance, an area in which we have been weak for a long time, and is the ultimate source of our inevitable decline.

"And as for qualitative easing I must confess I never particularly liked that policy. But austerity would be even worse."

Neither do I, but under the circumstances, it seemed better than the alternatives. Austerity is the worst way to weather a downturn. Ideally, when the economy is up, the government would be running a surplus, and when it's down, running a deficit. The fact we're running a deficit when we're up, and a worse one when we're down points to the unsustainability of our net economic policy and behavior.

When I speak of "inevitable decline" and "unsustainability" I'm not saying it's too late the right our ship of state in absolute terms or that things are currently "unmanageable," just that we're currently headed in the direction of collapse, not prosperity and strength, that the turning circle is huge in any event, and that nations rarely, if ever, succeed in making course corrections. The grassroots realities that have caused us to embark on this heading will keep the wheel pinned there, more or less, barring a *remarkable* shift.

Anonymous said...

"The bonafide way to strengthen the dollar is through strengthening the US trade balance, an area in which we have been weak for a long time, and is the ultimate source of our inevitable decline."

Agreed. Parity of trade and NOT free trade. Remember the Boston Tea Party(the historical event and not the political party)?
Currently the poorer economies of the world, those that produce the 'cheap' goods for Americans to have the opportunity to stretch our dollar a little further, while the poor can't even afford to buy the production that they produce for us(or any higher economy) and especially the prohibitive price of America's production for which they are unable to buy. Cheap markets require cheap labor. Eventually, the economies will continue to merge and balance out. Although Americans will be left with a much lower standard of living.

"Unforgiven:The Story of How America Has Exchanged Parity Agriculture for Parity War" Charles Walters
That book goes into great detail about trade and how to build a stronger economy.
normeconomics(dot)com/index.html

Redfox712 said...

Austerity is the worst way to weather a downturn.

I completely agree with your assessment of austerity.

But you must not forget the other reason S&P cited for the downgrade: the lack of a plan to reduce government deficit spending.

My thought in response to that in regards to S&P the following rhetorical questions come to mind. Why did S&P not do this back in the 1940s when the federal debt was higher per capita then. Why did they chose to act that way recently and not back in the 1940s? I know it would be difficult to find the information on that but that is what I cannot help but wonder.

At the time I thought S&P made a bad decision. And then later learning that the federal debt was higher per capita back in the 1940s only confirms to me that S&P was too quick to do this.

That's not the point. The depth of the money supply cuts both ways. As long as the dollar remains strong, people in general feel comfortable holding dollar denominated assets. But when the dollar weakens, people start to get concerned about the decline in the value of their portfolio vis-à-vis their home currency. China is the largest single holder of US bonds, and if it began a policy of trickling them out, that could lead others to do the same.

And another thing I thought about half the US federal debt is owed to itself or to other Americans.

In ending this comment I would just like to say I think this discussion has been very good. It is good that you care enough to respond on this topic.