Prophet Thiel points out that an atheist group has filed suit to stop it's display. Prophet Thiel is kind of glad they did, but for reasons other than what you would think.
Thiel despises crosses. Remember when the LCG shootings happened and sympathetic citizens in Milwaukee erected a few small crosses in the snow bank in sympathy for the people killed? Thiel went ballistic over that and made a complete ass of himself and brought more ridicule on the Living Church of God and it's aberrant non biblical beliefs.
While I am sure that Greg Zanis (the man who made the crosses) must have meant well, all need to understand that since we in the Living Church of God do not use crosses for worship in anyway, that we would prefer they not be used to honor our dead. All of the victims would have agreed. Flowers, prayers on behalf of the survivors, etc. would be considered appropriate.
Christianity Today magazine had this to say about Thiel tirade:
"At the same time, believers in the midst of tragedy should be patient with the media and the world at large. One member of the Meredith organization, on a website to which I will not link, takes great issue with the erection of memorial "crosses" outside the hotel where the shooting took place. Why? Because Meredith and his followers do not believe the "cross" is anything other than a pagan invention; they assert that Christ was crucified on an upright stake or tree, and that crosses were introduced later. Another objection was to the view that the deceased are, at this moment, "in a better place," i.e., heaven. The Meredith-supporting writer emphasized his church's view that the dead are "asleep" and unconscious until the resurrection, casting aspersions on a heartfelt expression from people who are presumably of good will. Neither the symbolism of the cross nor the question of the state of the dead is a debate I wish to enter here. Nor do I wish to disparage the sincerity of the other writer's convictions. However, it could easily be viewed by the general public as ungracious at best for people in one church to disavow a kind gesture from another, different church because those other people didn't know the etiquette that the first church follows. In a time of tragedy, when emotions are raw and hearts are wounded, I believe it is better for all concerned to merely accept whatever condolences are offered with the words, "Thank you," and then move on. This isn't the time for an "educational message" about paganism, so-called "soul sleep" or anything else. It's a time to accept what is offered with thanks, and in so doing perhaps opening the door to further discussion at a later time.
Thiel responds:
And now, yet again, we get to see the Prophet angry again at a cross.But I did, and still, feel that the public should understand that the use of crosses is not something that the deceased would have preferred. I consider that for proper respect for the dead, as well as the survivors, most of whom are members of the Living Church of God, our position was a good thing to point out--especially BEFORE the funerals. My comments were not intended to be ungracious. I considered my comments to be the courteous thing to do for those unfamiliar with our beliefs.
First off, he gets a dig in at Christianity Today magazine. According to him the magazine is falsely labeled because everyone knows there are no REAL Christians outside the Living Church of God!!!!!!!!!! How dare they pretend to be Christians!
He goes on to write:The improperly named publication Christianity Today (CT) currently has the following headline and subheadline at its website:
No Christian in the New Testament is ever described as having or wearing a cross. This is not to say that all who own a cross are active idolators, but that the historical facts should give people pause to ask themselves if they should own or wear one.
The Bible simply does not teach that Jesus had to have been killed on a cross
If the cross is a symbol of the future Antichrist/Beast power as Roman Catholic Priest P. Huchedé indicates it will be (and it is in a book with an official imprimatur), perhaps those who come from faiths descended from Emperor Constantine should be concerned about their religion now–before it becomes even further removed from the original faith. The Bible indicates that the true Christians will NOT have the symbol/mark needed to buy or sell when the two beasts of Revelation 13 are in power, but only those that will follow those beasts will (Revelation 13:16-17)–and while crosses may not necessarily be required everywhere, other Catholic writings suggest that in certain places, they will be.
CT is correct that all should be offended about using the cross as a 9/11 symbol. Idolatry is a serious problem and many today do not realize that most who profess Christianity practice it. Some type of cross possibly could be related to the mark of the beast. All of this was all left out of the CT article, so I thought that those interested in the truth may find this of value.
This is part of what Christianity Today said:
The Book of Acts records that upon hearing this indictment for the first time, many of Peter's listeners were "cut to the heart." Understandably so—the charge is enough to turn the stomach, darken the mind, and plunge the heart into despair. Or, in other words, Peter's words were enough to cause "dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish." The atheist litigants have called the 9/11 cross "an ugly piece of wreckage," arguing that it speaks of "horror and death." On the basis of the New Testament, these statements are difficult to contradict.
But if the image of the cross represents humanity's greatest collective failure, why would a nation cling to it as a sign of hope in the days after 9/11? The exchange that follows Peter's sermon sheds some further light.
When asked to suggest a course of action, Peter advised his hearers, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"—advice which makes little sense unless one assumes certain premises. These premises, implicit in the Christian religion from day one, were intricately explored over the next several decades in the writings of St. Paul, who advanced what would become the best-known but least-understood tenet of Christian theology: that somehow the death of the perfectly sinless Christ was itself the event which atoned for all the wrongdoing of the sinful human race.
If true, this turns the cross into a profound paradox. The same event that condemns humanity also justifies it, standing at once as damning evidence of guilt and a doorway to forgiveness and innocence. What's more, the very episode that shows humanity at its worst shows God at his best, as he transforms an act of wickedness into a display of mercy and love. It is difficult to imagine themes more relevant to the attacks of September 11.
Suppose God himself has suffered and died at the hands of evil men. Suppose God himself has shown the capacity for taking what was intended for harm and using it for good. Might this affect the way we ourselves face evil and suffering? Might this be a source of strength to someone who is waist-deep in ash and rubble, trying to loosen bodies from steel and concrete?
For the person who accepts this narrative, the cross is the only thing that makes sense in the face of a senseless tragedy. But for the person who rejects it, the cross serves as a reminder of an offensive and seemingly absurd accusation, adding insult to injury. The trouble with the cross is that it refuses to be the universal symbol of beauty that some would make it out to be—it speaks life to those who believe, but death to those who do not.
Thiel is not happy because of the above excerpts. He seems to still be bitter that CT nailed his ass years ago with his "cross" comments. That is why the above comments from CT stick a knife into the heart of everything Thiel writes. It damns him and he is not happy! How dare pagan "Christians" expose him for what he is! Satan is at work in the world condemning the COG.No wonder people disagree about where it should be displayed.
Thiel is looked upon by many in the LCG as a fool. We do not look upon him as inspired. He comes across as arrogant, condescending, and dismissive. His 2012 book is nothing more than a work of fiction that some might find entertaining.
ReplyDeleteYes, I've long suspected this, Anonymous 10:45. Thank you for your candor! This is something on which we can agree.
ReplyDeleteFollowing Thiel's comments about the crosses which the surrounding Christian community in Wisconsin had placed as part of offering their heartfelt condolences in the aftermath of the Terry Ratzmann massacre, I did a bit more research on crosses. I can't say I was totally surprised to discover that history simply does not support the classic WCG position. You can lift certain supportive quotes from ancient texts and histories, but these are countered by other quotes which WCG researchers chose to ignore. One thing that many may not realize is that condemned individuals were often nailed to, and carried the cross piece to the upright stake which had already been anchored in the ground. On arrival at the site, the final assembly of the cross was completed. The very word "crucify" implies death on a cross. The Romans who crucified Jesus were pagans!
WCG often attempted to distance itself from official positions of mainstream Christianity by deliberately taking contrary positions. Obviously, they were influenced by Hislop on this, an author whose research has fallen into disrepute, as apparently he made much of it up as he went along. There have been well researched books rebuttaling Hislop, but the WCG and splinters do not acknowledge them, and have never corrected their positions.
Every year, the ACOG splinters ridicule mainstream Christians for making Christmas all about a powerless little baby in a manger. Well, since I've been attending an evangelical church, I've learned that mainstream Christianity cites the extreme humility Jesus exhibited in divesting Himself of his wealth, his Godship, and everything associated with that to be born as a little helpless baby in impoverished circumstances. That very humility is an occasion for much deeper respect and worship! In attempting to establish themselves as being unique, WCG/HWA went about it in a very disingenuous, agenda-based way. They provided much lying witness to support their doctrinal approach.
BB
Well you know what the Bible says, "if any man would follow me, let him take up his stake and follow me." Or something like that...I forget
ReplyDeleteM.T.Stick
No Christian in the New Testament is ever described as paying tithes on wages.
ReplyDeleteI have a question: When the LCG dies, can we mark its grave with a cross.
After all, no one will be around to protest.
"Thou have a name that thou art LIVING, but are dead."
No, forget "When the LCG dies". According to Scripture (as quoting Jesus Christ Himself), it is already dead. We should start putting up crosses for the LCG right now....
Can anyone explain to me the origin of the cross. Why a cross? Why not a single line, or a triangle, or a square, or a circle or a 5 pointed or 6 pointed star or some other shape? Could the following possibly offer a clue?
ReplyDeleteDeut 4:19 ...and lest you lift up your eyes unto heaven, and when thou see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, [even] all the host of heaven, should be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all other nations ....
I have an idea, I just wonder if anyone else does.
(Is there a way a picture can be posted in this space or on this blog? A picture is worth a thousand words, so I've been told.)
Thiel is looked upon by many in the LCG as a fool.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 10:45 seems to forget that Rod Meredith is the one who has given Thiel such prominence and credibility within LCG, publicly praising him on many occasions. To call Thiel a fool is to call Meredith a fool, which is what more and more LCG members are doing. LCG may not be dead yet, but Rod Meredith is loosing credibility, and LCG is dying. Long ago, even the most loyal LCG members grew tired of hearing Meredith's same 5 sermons over and over again, but many are now waking up and realizing that the lying nepotist's repetitive words do not match up with his hypocritical deeds, and that he is just an angry old man running a business for the benefit of his family.
I hear that unpaid elders in several LCG congregations are quietly putting out feelers to other COG groups, preparing to depart after the Feast together with most if not all of their congregation members. There’s even a rumor that some in Charlotte have started a secretive "PCG Literature Study Group" to find out whether Meredith has been lying about Flurry's teachings. If true, how miserable must those people be, that they would seriously consider PCG as an alternative to LCG?
Fortunately for Meredith, there will always remain a die-hard core (corps? corpse?) of Meredith-worshippers that will keep him in business for as long as he lives. What isn’t certain is whether people’s loyalty to the father will transfer to the son when it comes time for the inevitable transition. LCG is not yet dead, and it will outlive Rod Meredith, but probably not by very long.
Homer:
ReplyDeleteWhat picture are you after?
I am not after a picture, I have a picture I would like to post which may give some insight as to the origin of the symbol of the cross and what it represents. I can give a brief explanation along with the picture. One can decide for one's self if it is "pagan" or not.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't just Prophet Theil who raises opinion to doctrine -- it's all the Armstrongists and even some of the anti-Armstrongists. The only solution is to have irrefutable fact, scientific evidence and hard logic.
ReplyDeleteYears back, Dennis Diehl posted an opinion about the Bible and how "kissing" was never mentioned. My immediate reaction was something to the effect of, just how incompetent could a former WCG minister be, not, apparently read the Song of Solomon, and I pointed it out to him on the blog. Silence. No response. This reduced his credibility to zero for me -- expressing opinion as fact and then when caught at it, he quietly steals away.
Today, of course, Deihl puts the myth in Mithra, making all sorts of claims in his opinion pieces. No one responds. Maybe they are like me: It's not worth the time to disprove speculative fiction. At minimum though, such claims as the Book of Daniel being written in 160 AD should have been challenged by the fact that the Roman Empire (arguably predicted in the book) had not come on the scene yet. Or the claim that the Apostle Paul didn't know about the Virgin Birth. Paul knew Luke and was Paul's travels were documented by Luke in Acts. Since Luke probably authored the Book of Luke (pushing the limits of speculation here), logically speaking, it's unlikely that Paul didn't know about the theory of the Virgin Birth.
On the other hand, Deihl practices the de facto ad hominum argument to undermine other people's credibility for his own purposes. For example, At any rate, if I use the words, "narcissists," "snakes in suits," "Armstrongists," "British Israelism, " , we know who this is commenting even without the name. This is the equivalent of the demons (and the Pharisees) telling Jesus Christ, "we know who you are". Yes, because we know who you are and what you have to say, we don't need to listen to you. Listen to me instead, what with my opinions of rubbish -- and praise me for how smart I am.
Peter Falk as Lt. Columbo said, "Every time I feel confused, it is because somebody is lying". It's difficult not to be confused with some people's postings.
And why should we expect otherwise?
What we have here is a prime example of the 1971 Stanford Experiment all over again. A trained guard who may have changed his opinions (the jury is still out on that one -- perhaps it's the opinions which were always held) and may have changed his venue, but we're still Diehling with a guard and we're still prisoners.
The methods are the same as that other guard, Prophet Thiel.
The way to combat the guards is to overpower them with superior force in the form of irrefutable facts, scientific proof and hard logic. You know, the kind of evidence which would stand up in a criminal court of law. Something like DNA.
But that would ruin the fun. No one wants real facts. It just spoils the credibility of the people expressing their rubbish opinions.
Send it to me, or send me a link and I will see if I can get it up for you. no2hwa@yahoo.com
ReplyDelete"Years back, Dennis Diehl posted an opinion about the Bible and how "kissing" was never mentioned. My immediate reaction was something to the effect of, just how incompetent could a former WCG minister be, not, apparently read the Song of Solomon, and I pointed it out to him on the blog. Silence. No response. This reduced his credibility to zero for me -- expressing opinion as fact and then when caught at it, he quietly steals away."
ReplyDeleteAnd Dougie would you like to prove I said this? If I did, I don't recall it and what was the context? I recall no such comment and can't think of any context I would say such a thing. If i did, let's take a look at the context. Jerk.
Dougie, why don't you give it a try and write your own perspectives on the Jesus story. I'd love to hear your views and how you back them. The mythicism of the Jesus story is not of my making. It is a common view. Go ahead, write your articles and let us have a go at them.
ReplyDeleteDougie, I believe you have the wrong person in mind. I am more than well aware of the Song of Solomon and would not have said such a thing in any context I remember. Do you have Thiel mixed up with Diehl?
ReplyDeleteI don't ever recall any comments by Dennis about kissing. I think something is mixed up here.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I have complete confidence in what Dennis Diehl writes as it always checks out. If its a personal opinion, he says so and explains why. We all have opinions and sometimes those can be wrong or need tweaking.
Dennis does have his barrage. You could make a full time occupation out of addressing the various components, one at a time. And, then there is Corky's barrage, containing challenges to belief.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm more inclined to take on HWA's barrage than to take either Dennis or Corky on. It has been my experience that people believe what they either want or need to believe, and even if some eloquent individual positively proves that a point is wrong, he who made the point will not back down, will not admit defeat, and will not change his beliefs. Basically, I read a lot, and have my own belief system to which there are many benefits and blessings. My study is personal,
and I don't feel the need to teach. I will discuss, however.
I will say this. If I had something against the teachings of either Jesus or Paul, I'd probably be inclined to collect a barrage similar to Dennis's. But I don't. To me Jesus and Paul laid down some pretty darned good guiding principles, ones that you can use in all walks of life and teach to your kids. Most ex-members' problems with those teachings were that Armstrongism used them as an impliment of spiritual rape on us all. It took long enough, but I've been guided past that, and have moved on.
BB
Dennis has never said anything about 'kissing' on this blog, nor have I ever seen it on others. Perhaps it was Thiel, since almost everything seems to upset him.
ReplyDeletePaul started it with his confusing almagamation of corrupted and amalgamated religions. The council of Nicea and subsequent gatherings to clarify ignorant mythology continued it. Protestantism injected more nonsense to try to straighten out an unstraightenable mishmash.
ReplyDeleteArmstrong was about as pompous as Paul or anyone else. Hoeh was the Molotov of WCG who survived any purge by being a master ass kisser.
I see no variance in the history of Christianity from day one. If it gives a sense of well-being to someone else, they are welcome to it. I don't need fanciful myths to make my life complete or make me feel safe from damnation. Nor do I need to argue about grace, evangelicalism or any other theological time wasting drivel.
Free at last! Gloriously free at last!
That last comment really should have been to the piece immediately preceding. Still applicable but out of place.
ReplyDeleteHello, after reading this awesome paragraph i am also cheerful to share my familiarity
ReplyDeletehere with colleagues.