Sunday, July 16, 2017

Bob Thiel Takes His Greatest Risk Ever! SHOCKING!!!



Check out this little ditty from God's most important end-time man who just stepped out and made a major change that was so earthshaking he had to write about it. And to think that his members in Africa read this as some kind of a miracle is appalling.  Seriously what COG leader would ever write such drivel as this?

Greetings again from Grover Beach, California.
We tried something different for the sermonette.
Normally, more theological sermonettes are uploaded to the Continuing COG YouTube channel.
This time, I decided to do the longest sermonette I have ever given (essentially this could be consider part of what has been called a “split-sermon–meaning two sermon topics} and upload it to the Bible News Prophecy channel.
Anyway, I believe I am taking an audience risk with this. The topic has to do with false conversion and it is my hope and prayer that some who are not part of us will take the scriptures to heart and repent and be converted–but some may take offense. We will see.
Because the sermonette is the longest I have given, I also decided that the sermon should be about the shortest one I have ever given (though it is not much shorter than usual).

47 comments:

Byker Bob said...

Shocking! Bob Thiel should be forced by the Federal Government to video his internet sermons while sitting on the toilet. The theme song for his "show" should be Paul Simon's "Still Crazy".

BB

Steve J said...

When I read the title saying he takes the greatest risk ever I though maybe he was going to actually tell a prophesy....damn, I'm naive.

Hoss said...

Bob's spoiler alert also served as damage control. I listened to it last week, but before commenting, I listened again to remind myself how bad it was. While listening the second time I wondered how Bob did in Spokesman's Club - if he had given a speech like that in our club, besides being buzzed, the director would have torn it apart.
It seemed like a hodgepodge of issues with varying relevance to the topic. If it had been written out and properly delivered, without the asides and sidetracks, it would have been a fairly standard sermonette.
As I've commented before, Bob needs more scripting and post-editing. Perhaps the new guy that he wants to hire could assist...

Anonymous said...

False conversion? Has Bitter Bob finally figured out that he is pouring lots of money into an African sinkhole, helping to ease the poverty of African contacts who are always on the lookout for generous American churches?

Maybe Bob will think a little more deeply about whether there's much difference between Africans who place their faith in laptop computers from their ministers and Americans who place their faith in double-portion prophetic anointings from their ministers? Is Bob perhaps on the verge of discovering his utter lack of humility and his deep need for conversion? If so, will Bob humbly embrace the Mayan religion, the Catholic religion, or the utterly discredited Armstrong religion?

DennisCDiehl said...

Conversion, false or otherwise is none of Bob's or anyone else's business to judge as if he knew. Usually false conversion to a COG leader, when levied against a member, is really due to the fact they don't go along to get along and disagree with the leader thus becoming a threat to the group. How often I heard "they were never converted" when someone left which let the minister or administration off the hook for why they really left. It is easy, when in denial over your leaders or church being wrong to respond with "Oh...well that explains it" and go on one's happy delusional way without asking the actual person why the left.

Another reason one gets judged on this criteria is they "sinned" or made mistakes unacceptable in a church environment. Normal for humans but not for "converted" ones. Personally I never noticed people change very much if at all in temperament or personality which often are what get looked at to prove the fruits of conversion according to others. I include myself. Bob will be happy to know and in full agreement on this that, in hindsight, I don't consider myself to have ever been converted in any "filled with the Holy Spirit" version or experience. I was sincere. I was baptized. I walked away with an impression something very different was happening or happened, but..I have not changed much and really don't know what it was that needed to change. Well unless not going along to get along is the fruit of the devil, or majoring in the minors as a pastor was a sign of false conversion. I'd be the first to see my own struggles with trying to be what I was not by nature and I don't mean my "evil human nature" or "heart that is deceitful above ALL things and desperately wicked, who can know it?" I found that scripture to be a bit overstated just as some would try to convince the heart of a precious baby was already sin laden and evil. Lol. Stupid beyond belief.

Conversion in the church and in any church usually means compliance and agreement with the tenants of that church or leader. See what happens if conversion for a member means they have more insights and become an amazing teacher and speaker and they tell the leader. LOL. Or worse yet, see what happens when you get a double portion of the spirit and claim all sorts of fantastical and magical mind powers complete with a shiny new title. You'll end up alone in your store with far too few friends to act as brakes for delusional thinking.

Anyway, long topic short, Bob Thiel has no business judging others and is not equipt to do so to begin with, nor is anyone else. "To his own self he stands or falls" as it says .

Aside from all the COG apologetics for Romans 14 and what it means. (It means what it says if it matters at all what Paul thinks)

The Law of Liberty
…3 The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.…"

In the COGs, they can't take a scripture at face value. "Well whatever it means, it can't mean that!" pretty much is the way it goes if seems to go against the Jewish Christian view. Paul was really big on going against that view and he actually wrote Romans.

Liberty of thought is not a biggie in the COG's . "With ideas like that you'll really go up in the church" means up the stairs to the gallows.

Bob needs to mind his own business. Stay out of the thoughts and intents of people's hearts and even their struggles and practice the thought that encouragement given by the encourager needs actually to be encouraging to the ones needing encouragement.

DennisCDiehl said...

and too...Bob MUST have a particular reason for being so dramatic in this announcement. Though I don't judge :) This is usually the tact and topic one takes to cushion the blow of a major defection or problem, (in Africa?) that has come up and the departure of someone or some group from "the church" will need to be explained.

Connie Schmidt said...

Thiel speaks of his message as "the longest sermonette ever given".

The internal contradiction of that statement made me laugh!

Perhaps Thiel is the Stupidest Smart person ever as well!

Lake of Fire Church of God said...

"Almost arrested for Sabbathkeeping, non-ordained but doubly blessed Profit Bitter Bob Thiel (I can't remember all his other Titles) said, "This time, I decided to do the longest sermonette I have ever given (essentially this could be consider part of what has been called a “split-sermon–meaning two sermon topics} and upload it to the Bible News Prophecy channel.
Anyway, I believe I am taking an audience risk with this".

MY COMMENT - Can you imagine Herbert Armstrong making such a melee mouthed verbal piece dribble? To borrow Senator Loyd Benson's famous VP debate zinger, "I knew Herbert Armstrong, Herbert Armstrong was once a friend of mine. You sir, are no Herbert Armstrong". Not even close.

Nobody gives a rats ass about your "audience risk", bitter Bob. That is laughable. Do you realize what a joke you have become among the remnant of Herbert Armstrong's Radio/Worldwide Church of God movement?

Richard

Richard

Anonymous said...

This is an article?

Anonymous said...

This is Bob Thiel
When I visited Rods house on the open day, I borrowed a bookshelf and some of his
curtains. No there will be no more crappy curtains or bookshelf in my future videos.
Banned will not have Bob to kick around any more. So there.
Bye all.

Anonymous said...

Dennis,
The description you give in 6.42 AM is not that much different in mainstream Christian denominations. They copy from one another and have a similar map of reality. The things that they say and hide is very similar. For instance, they endlessly talk about forgiveness, with scant mention of not sinning against others to begin with. Their church cultures only vaguely follows biblical instruction.

Jesus Built My Hot Rod said...

Do people actually join Bod Thiel's cult ? To be perfectly honest I find his sermons verging on the edge of mind-numbing boredom.

Anonymous said...

Taking a risk? What a man of great courage. If I were still in the Army I'd recommend him for a medal. Damn, I'm impressed.

Dennis Diehl said...

All the bible characters had trouble following Biblical Instructions and couldn't agree on which ones either

Hoss said...

Connie wrote: Thiel speaks of his message as "the longest sermonette ever given".

Did Gerald Waterhouse ever give a sermonette?

Bob could try to beat Rod Meredith's record for longest closing prayer. (FOT 1992, Palm Springs)

RSK said...

The big announcement was a minor change in format?? Did I read that correctly?

Is the service format now an Armstrongist sacrament???

Helen Wheels said...

Since the overt meaning of "sermonette" is a little sermon, how long does a sermonette have to be before it's just a sermon?

I don't see how you're taking an audience risk with anything at this point, Bob. Anyone who has ever seen your schtick before is hardly going to take new offense now. They might chuckle a little more often than usual though.

I Knew Bob In LCG said...

Mind-numbing boredom is what those of us in LCG thought when we heard him speak. The man is incapable of carrying on a logical conversation with out adding his smug biblical interpretations to it.

Anonymous said...

The first time I began to read/study the bible I got that as my impression that nobody in the old or new testament could agree on anything. The best that anybody can do is strive to be a good person and treat people with the utmost kindness (if at all possible).

Hoss said...

I Knew Bob In LCG wrote adding his smug biblical interpretations to it

This is the reason GTA claimed he turned down a megabucks offer by an unnamed network to make him a news anchor -- he was afraid he would be too tempted to add biblical interpretation to each news item. And HWA made a similar claim, only to him doing "the work" was more important than making money...

I recall hearing one of Bob's radio discussions, and the host of the show managed to keep him under control. Bob hasn't announced any job offers as did HWA and GTA...

Also knew Bob Thile in LCG. He was a prick then just as he is now said...

Thiel considers himself highly educated. He assumes by giving a sermon on 10-15 different subjects is a sign of his intelligence, he is sadly mistaken. He has to speak on so many different topics because he has no real in-depth understanding on much of anything he talks about. It is no wonder Meredith rebuked him later on. Meredith even said he found Thiel to be too smug and self-righteous for his own good.

Anonymous said...

Dennis,
Yes, most bible characters had difficulty following the bible in practice (Samuel, Elijah and other prophets did OK), but that's different to being a teacher. God says that their judgment is stricter. There's a big difference to committing adultery and teaching others to do so. God will forgive/tolerate the former but not the later.
Ministers (Herbs and other denominations) behaving as the proverbial 'masters rather than counsellors' is rebellion rather than human weakness. Hiding that God leads individual Christians so that the ministers can usurp Christ's role is calculated rebellion and blasphemy.
You whitewash the ministers (your former colleagues) with your 'but everyone sins.'

Anonymous said...

Hoss wrote: And HWA made a similar claim, only to him doing "the work" was more important than making money...
Really? Like GTA and HWA weren't making big bucks with many perks in the WCG?
The best scam is a religious one when you have a good attorney to keep you just this side of legal. The government won't interfere.

Hoss said...

Anon 820

Perhaps I should have been more explicit.
There is no evidence that either GTA or HWA were ever offered big network news jobs. With HWA, he did make far more money doing "the work", and GTA made his remark when he was in ICG. Ironic too that HWA would claim he could have been rich and famous but he chose not to, when he claimed that God had made his businesses fail.

Anonymous said...

Bob has lost it. Bob that is.

Connie Schmidt said...

It is my understanding that the local Los Angeles television station KTLA offered GTA a $250k a year contract to be a newscaster for them after the 1978 debacle. Although Los Angeles is a huge television market, it indeed was not a "network" position, ala a CBS, NBC or ABC type of thing.

Connie Schmidt said...

It is my understanding that the local Los Angeles television station KTLA offered GTA a $250k a year contract to be a newscaster for them after the 1978 debacle. Although Los Angeles is a huge television market, it indeed was not a "network" position, ala a CBS, NBC or ABC type of thing.

Byker Bob said...

Yep. If he were a bit more O.C., he might even be a cutter!

BB

Hoss said...

Thanks Connie, it's quite possible. If GTA actually did turn down such an offer, it's also a matter of the reason he said he did so, and the real reason...

nck said...

HWA said that Jesus had ordained him to be a "newscaster", to proclaim the "good news".
GTA tried to reform WCG into a newscorp like "christian science monitor."
But he lost to the diplomatic internationalist, rockefellar crowd who valued "personal relations" more than broadcasting (which is bound to regulations).

Somehow people have managed to spin the newscasting thing into HWA having claimed to be "a prophet". Which he specifically denied in MOA, which he considered a quite important book.

nck

Byker Bob said...

You know why HWA denied being a prophet? It was his way of spinning the issue. He thought that by emphatically denying being a prophet, people wouldn't be able to call him a false one. But, someone who tells what the future holds is actually prophesying. When Jesus failed to keep the personal appearance that HWA had presumptuously booked for Him in 1975, HWA earned the label "false prophet". It was a totally appropriate label, and none of his backpedalling or explaining away ever purged him of that label.

But, nck, if you want to accept what HWA explained while in backpedal mode after the disappointment of 1975, sorry, old chap, that tells us that you are by nature very naive!

BB

Anonymous said...

Nck
MOA was written by several ministers. Plagiarism is rampant in American culture. It's the new normal. Celebrities putting out books like clockwork, yet claiming it as their own, is comical. I heard a TV interviewer ask a celebrity where she found the time to write her new book. The honest answer would have been 'I didn't find the time at all.'

Hoss said...

"newscaster"

And intentional or not, referring to Jesus as a "newscaster" may appear to have been leveling the playing field, as well as distorting Jesus' mission.
And I gather that Bob's "risk" was putting his "False Conversion" video on the BNP channel rather than the CCOG channel. His audience "tunes in" to BNP, expecting to see more of Bob playing prophetic trivial pursuit and instead they get a double-portion video on theology. No problems, they can just watch a rerun of another episode.
Of course another risk was putting that video up in the first place.

Anonymous said...

@ nck: Just because he 'specifically denied' it, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

nck said...

Interesting comments!

I think the defenition of a prophet is someone predicting the future through DIRECT communication with God.

Again HWA specifically denied to have EVER received a vision OR hear voices on his head.

I am not naive. Just going by his written and oral statements. You know, that thing that lawyers do.

Nck

nck said...

Who cares about who wrote MOA?

HWA said it was a most important book to him. And it says that he was not a prophet.

Funny you make it a "whodunnit" case.

Nck

nck said...

BB

Well we know the HWA type of reasoning.

In USBIP he says that God had promised to have a descendant of Abraham on a perpetual throne.

Therefore he concluded BI theory must be true.

I'm not naive in how he interpreted the sacredness of scripture regarding prophecy. I guess he was unable to discern between interpretation and fact.

Bu that happens when history is on your side (for awhile). Like the ascend of the British Empire OR its successor.

Interpretation seemed to match the facts.

Then there was Trump.......(joke)

Nck

Anonymous said...

Nck
Nope, Herb said he write MOA. I recall him saying over and over that he didn't feel that he wrote the book ie he was divinely inspired.
'Who cares about who wrote MOA? You are entitled to your opinion. But others might not be aware of this, and find it interesting. Each to their own.

Hoss said...

Occasionally the validity of Bob’s PhD and ThD come up, as well as the lack of even a high school diploma by HWA. Bob’s videos are bookended with ‘This is Dr Bob Thiel…”, yet his claim is to have been called by God as a prophet – so academic qualifications, genuine or not, should be of no concern.
Despite the ThD, Bob appends his name with ‘PhD’ and not ‘ThD’. So, we have a religious video where the speaker emphasizes his science doctorate rather than his theology doctorate. So when Dr Bob speaks, which doctor is speaking?
Now something interesting about the word Doctor – the etymology of the English word is through French, meaning was “Church Father”, from Latin, “Religious teacher”. And the point here being, Bob can be a stickler for minutiae when he chooses, so does his using the title Doctor conflict with Matthew 23:8-12?

Byker Bob said...

But, nck, HWA forgot about Ezek. 21:26-27! After the Babylonian captivity ended, the Israelite monarchy was never restored. The promise to David was conditional and based on obedience. God had to take it away, as He says right here in Ezekiel. Even King Herod was Idumean.

The crown and throne are not to be restored until Jesus receives them.
HWA's vain speculations about the British royal family (They're German!) sitting on King David's throne are unsubstantiated and ludicrous!

BB

nck said...

Yes BB,

It was the way of the elites.
All elites ever claim ancient timelines eventually descending from Gods or ancient heroes. We just happened to get entangled in the British one, which was a version of the common earlier protestant myths/propaganda about their leaders assisting the break from (Egypt) the Holy Roman Empire.

Later examples of this phenomenon are the substantial numbers of 19th century weddings of wealthy american lasses with ancient impoverished european pedigrees.

If you have the power and wealth, what else can one wish for than a name.

It was an elite thing.

I believe only the Japanese believe they descend from their god through their emperor. MacArthur understood this concept very well and decided to leave him be to prevent the collapse of society.

Later of course other Americans received high praise for the introducing of these "God sons" into the family of man and system of peaceful nations.

Through international contacts, the unseen hand of free trade and liberal economics and the exchange of culture with other nations who started of as "exclusive, set apart peoples with special relations with their prosperity bringing God.

CONDITIONAL. Yes, of course.

Nck

Anonymous said...

BB
What are you drinking, or have you never read your bible? Many times in the OT God stated that for David's sake, He allowed David's descendants to remain in power. Many times God repeated His promise of there always being a person sitting on David's throne. Even queen Victoria and her advisors believed that they were the fulfilment of Gods promise to have someone sitting on Gods throne.
How else can you explain worldwide reverence to a bunch of ribbon cutters?

Retired Prof said...

July 20 at 9:39, I'm not BB, but I'll take a stab at your question, "How else can you explain worldwide reverence to a bunch of ribbon cutters?"

It's usually a good idea to leave open for consideration a range of explanations and not depend on the argument from ignorance. "I can't think of anything else right now, so what I think must be true." There could be many historical, social, and psychological reasons for "worldwide reverence to a bunch of ribbon cutters."

The basic motivation seems to be that human beings, like other primates, evolved in hierarchical groups. Those of lesser rank deferred to higher-ranking individuals; at the same time they strove to rise in rank, or at least not fall. One way to do so has always been to emulate the alphas, and to do so they had to pay close attention. Primates who were fascinated by their superiors paid closer attention than their lesser tribal members and had more successful offspring. In small groups where everybody knew each other, individuals could attain high rank by force of personality or by parental status. As tribes coalesced into city-states and nations, parental status outweighed other influences. People were fascinated with and deferred to members of high status families, even ones with weak or undesirable personal qualifications. The British upper classes were generally no more talented than commoners, but nevertheless enjoyed privilege and power. The royals were the alphas of this group. People gave them worldwide reverence because they were famous, somewhat the way media attention in America promotes reverence for the mediocre in America. The Kardashians. The Trumps.

nck said...

Retired Prof.

I really really like your take.
Indeed there are a million historical, psychological, biological reasons for the deference.

Perhaps I might add that linguistically the word "Lord" id derived from "Loaf ward", or "the one that hands you the (loaf) of bread.

Indeed, a matter of life and death.

Nck

Byker Bob said...

Sorry, it's the work week. I only have a couple of beers over the weekend, and this is Thursday. So, no drinking is involved.

Still, what do you do with Ezekiel 21:26-27? Why is it in the Bible? Do you reject and disregard it simply because it raises an inconvenient question? I'd imagine that most people in the Armstrong churches would simply say, "Mr. Armstrong taught...." and that would suffice as their proof, settling the matter.

Why are the British Royal family today German? Wouldn't that have to mean that the Germans were not Assyrians? Either way, HWA and the conspiracy theory he used to give his gospel a hook, (instead of real and verifiable history), end up wrong.

BB

nck said...

"Why are the British Royal family today German?"

BB,

You are stuck in the seventies.

In 1983 Lady Diana was brought into the gene pool. (Carefully selected background, since poor Prince Charles had a different taste in women all together.) From solid sheep sheering stock. And as I recall some knights from the William the Conquerer invasion. (Normans)

Little Prince George's mother hails from solid coal miners stock.

Now, you calculate the Britishness of Little George.

nck

Hoss said...

Good news everyone! as Professor Farnsworth [Futurama] will say...

In Bob's July 20 Brethren Letter Bob tells us, it's unclear if his double-length risk caused any damage:

Two weeks ago, I mentioned that I thought we might be taking a risk of offense by putting the long sermonette, False Conversion, up at the Bible News Prophecy channel. Well, it is unclear if we lost any subscribers because of that as our total number of subscribers has increased slightly since that was uploaded. So, that is good news.

At my last check, the video had 256 views and no thumbs down. For the BNP channel, the views are rather low compared to his prophecy-related material, but not too bad compared to views on the CCOG channel.