Holy Hanna! It's a new day in Church of God La-La Land and as usual, I was missing more things on my bingo card:
Is cannibalism safe for humans?
Is cannibalism ethical?
Our most highly esteemed, doubly blessed, and self-appointed prophet to the entire world, especially to Africa and 100 Caucasians, the Great Bwana Bob Mzungu Thiel has a promo for one of his latest sermons where he asks the following questions:
Recently, various ones have been looking into encouraging cannibalism as a way to help reduce climate change? Is cannibalism safe for humans? What is Kuru? What about Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? Is cannibalism ethical? Should Christians avoid uncleanness? What does the Bible teach about the consumption of flesh? How does the Bible teach Christians should be holy? What was Solyent Green? Is it being advocated now? Is human cannibalism prophesied in the Bible? Will famine hit the Anglo-American lands and peoples? What can you do to not have part in it? Is human cannibalism really prophesied? Dr. Thiel addresses these issues and more.
The absolute bullshit that occupies certain Church of God leaders' minds is appalling. It is no wonder God says he rejects them all.
44 comments:
Um...No! It is not safe for humans, especially if you are the main course.
One thing Bob Thiel has done above all others is demonstrate that the leadership of the Churches of God are complete imbeciles and antichrists. He goes out of his way to ignore Christ and all that the New Covenant has brought in order to promote this asinine version of Armstrongism.
Is it possible that some of Bob's African members are having a dietary influence on his 100 Caucasian members?
Who would want to listen to Dr. Theil address any issues? He is crazy.
Is it really necessary to use words like “bull——“ to make a point. Years ago Reader’s Digest made the perfect statement about this: people who use words like this are either too lazy or too stupid to grow their vocabulary. I suggest both apply to a site like this telling others to set a better example but set just the opposite example themselves. Even scripture says to not let words like this pass their lips.
At least these words leave no one in doubt about the kind of mindset at work here, and the real anti biblical approach.
As a person thinketh in his/her heart, SO IS HE/SHE, sums it up nicely.
Bob bringing up cannibalism and a 35 year old prophecy (see latest entry on his website) appears to be on a downward spiral like Dave Pack heading toward insanity. If not already there.
Proof the man is mentally ill.
If cannibals we must be, please eat Bob first!
Even for our littlest false prophlet of all, this has got to be THE most asinine, ridiculous and outright absurd brain fart he has ever had. Oh, how the never mighty have fallen even lower. Seriously Bob? Did your god send you another crazy dream urging you to preach to your "continuing shrinking church of another god" members that it's not nice to eat your fellow Christians? You have officially and publicly lost the plot my tiny one. Lost the plot. Your members should run away as fast as possible. That disgusting excuse for a minister you defend in Africa looks like he would eat you and not share your wings or thighs with others.
Way to emulate the genuine Apostles Bob. If this is how you show your members that you are determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, I am not surprised you ended up where you are now.
Well, it is mentioned in the Bible. God threatened Israel with cannibalism if they did not keep the SEVENTH day Sabbath.
As Bumbo the kid from Borneo would say, "Yum-Yum eat em up!"
Even for argument sake, if such events were to occur, that doesn't justify the ACOGs using such predictions as a means of undue influence over their members, or the "time is so short" ploy, so please don't mind us unleashing all manner of abuse on you "for your own good."
Ministers never have the right to place themselves above the law or make themselves stewards of other peoples lives. Church cultures says they do, the bible and the laws of the land says they don't.
Looking for a new experience, Kiddies? Come with us on the Kafkaesque mind trip of Psychedelic Armstrongism, brought to your courtesy of Dr. Robert Thiel, and Mr, David C.Pack, the Timothy Leary and Ram Das of the teachings Herbert W. Armstrong. You will need no drugs to go on this trip, just allow these two Sky Pilots to take over your mind and to expertly massage it through surreal concepts and imaginings which are unfathomable to the human mind in its natural state. Prepare to suppress your psyche and to submit to total death of ego and all active concerns for what you have been conditioned by society to see as your own personal needs. The truth will not come from within, you will experience their truth, a lobotomizing drug which they develop and carefully meter out, and the resulting metamorphosis will be a complete shock to your previous world view. This is a journey from which you will never come back! You will be permanently sick of life, and your only joy will come from jonesing for the latest and freshest flow of information from these, your gurus. You will be reduced to joining the statistical percentage of humanity which is totally incapable of taking care of itself, but don't worry! You won't even care! To learn more, visit our website if you can find it!
(The preceding has been a public service message of the National Broadcorping Castration)
3:49 wrote "Well, it is mentioned in the Bible. God threatened Israel with cannibalism if they did not keep the SEVENTH day Sabbath."
There are two problems with your statement. The events have already happened, and the Sabbath is NOT a new covenant demand.
Using these two subjects as threats to force people to do things no longer required of them is wrong.
2:44???? Seriously, so many levels there, guy. You offended the individual who used the term "Bull$hit", chastising him as if you were his parent, when all he did was to punctuate his displeasure with some expressive language whose shock value wore out sometime during the 1970s! Seriously, who appointed you as language monitor?
Also, I've found that when a person lacks the intelligence to combat or discuss an idea, they will often launch either an ad hominem attack on the expressor, or attack their grammar or language. Why could you not have simply regaled us with your rebuttal to the idea expressed? Didn't you have one? Was his idea too strong for you?
Know how tattoos are no longer shocking? Same with language. When I was in high school, my mom would either spank us or wash our mouths out with tobasco sauce if she ever heard one of us use the term "fart". Imagine my surprise when we studied Chaucer in Senior Class English! A fart was literally the most prominent point of activity in one of the stories in Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" He wrote during the 1300's! When my WCG Dad asked what we were studyng at school at the dinner table, as he sometimes did, I wisely committed a sin of omission when I replied.
Imagine if I had not!:
"Son, what did you study at school today?"
"Well, Sir, Polynomials in Algebra class, Avogadro's Theory in Chemistry, "Les Mierables" in French Class, Standard and Poors in Economics Class, we're still doing wrestling in Phys. Ed, oh and Mr. Chaucer in English Class."
"Chaucer?"
"Yes, Sir! He wrote the "Canterberry Talesl" back in the 1300's."
"Yes, I've heard of him! Which "Tale"?
"The Miller's Tale, Sir!"
"And what is that about?"
(Turning red) "I, uh, think it's best not to discuss it at the dinner table, Sir!"
"Nonsense, Son! Great English literature always has a place at the dinner table! What is it about?"
"Well, there's a love triangle, an argument over a lady, one of the guys, Nicholas, pretends to be that lady outside of the other guy's window and when he sticks his hesd out the window to give her a kiss, he's confronted with Nicholas's naked butt instead, and Nicholas farts in his face, as Chaicer describes it, as loud as a thunderclap!"
No way out of that one without serious damage to the ol' butt, and embarrassment over black and blue welts in the shower after gym! My parental units were absolute fanatics about their Armstrongism!
Oh and by the way, sorry if I've offended you. I hope your love for a good intellectual discussion overrode any distaste you might have for a couple of words you may not be used to hearing! Maybe some of the other contributors have some anecdotes to share!
Bob doth protest too much? Jesus taught and promoted cannibalism,
John 6: "54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them"
I think of this approach to homiletics as Waterhousean. Of course, Gerald did not originate it but he was artful in using it. The methodology has been in use since ancient times when shaman spoke lurid tales to people around a village campfire on spooky evenings. The approach is to create an atmosphere of sheer terror and then to characterize the denomination as safe harbor. It plays to the insecurities and fears that people tend to mull over. It builds organizational loyalty and everything that accrues from that.
An issue of praxis is that this use of fear focuses people on the dark horror of end time events rather than the bright joy of salvation in Christ. Paul said, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?” Yet, some Pulpits want the Pews to believe that unless they belong to the right denomination and adhere to the right liturgy, their safety, protection and salvation is forfeit. Fear is a handy way to leverage that result.
We should expect this kind of ideology from an organization that is pre-occupied with end-time prophecy – nay, that believes the gospel itself is actually a message of end-time prophecy. Variations on the theme of horror will proliferate. Christians may discuss variations on how to conduct outreach to needy populations. End-timers discuss variations on how the horrific can become more horrific.
Cannibalism is punishment for not keeping the seventh day sabbath. That shows what God thinks of Friday keepers and Sunday sunworshippers. The seventh day is a NT command because that is what Jesus and all the Christians in the NT kept, even after the ressurection. Jesus said he kept his father's commandments, and that to enter in to life we must do so also. If he wanted to get rid of the Sabbath why did he make so many statements in support of it? I guess he really wanted to confuse his followers so they would not make it into the kingdom. Some fool will assume I'm an Armstrongist because I wrote this and denegrate Armstrongists (which they consider a rebuttal).
Wow fake prophet Bobby must really be trying to deal with the witchcraft with his African converts.
Why would any sane person listen to him?
11:53 Nice try. Stick in the dirt if you please, and forget about raising one’s standards.
Several articles and books on writing say folks write long diatribes to excuse their position, but truth only takes a few words.
THIEL PONDERS --"Is cannibalism safe for humans?"
MY RESPONSE:
YES. However , meat must be "well done" and served with "A1 Sauce". Im still wondering whether this should be served
with Red or White wine.
"Cannibalism is punishment for not keeping the seventh day sabbath. That shows what God thinks of Friday keepers and Sunday sunworshippers."
That's pure unadulterated bunk! This is what someone says that has the Old Covenant running their lives.
Jesus challenges the old worldview with his own revelation of the nature of God. God in his perfect and indiscriminate grace causes the sun to shine and the clouds to rain on both the righteous and wicked. He is good to ALL and his compassion shows no favoritism.
Conversely, when tragedy hits, Jesus rejects the idea that God has selected some for salvation and others for calamity. Tragedy is neither caused by God nor is it selective according to behaviour.
Thiel is a modern day 'Chauncey Gardner'
A simple minded man is asked a question and he gives a simple answer as he understands the question. The person asking the question misunderstands Chauncey answer and credits him as a scholar. The ball of shit rolls down the hill as the film progresses.
With Thiel we have a functioning moron asking questions then answering them himself. Questions normal people would not even think of asking for the obvious reasons on issues that are non issues. Such are the acogs.
It seems that Jesus has been working overtime to cause division. He told some people to keep Saturday and then later told other people to keep Sunday (supposedly). Maybe he is hoping to start a war over religion, or just confuse people.
Jesus challenges the old worldview ...
Which was HIS "old" worldview. Why did he come up with it in the first place? So he could challenge it (i.e. get rid of it) later?
Have you been reading the Quran? It sounds like it. Every crazy or deadly thing Allah does is justified with "Allah is wise, merciful, benevolent, etc" which basically means the writer did not have a good explanation either, but said don't question it because you can't question Allah.
The old world view is the Old Covenant that was IMPOSSIBLE for every single human being to ever obey. No one ever did and no one, particularly in Armstrongism, has ever obeyed the law. It is amazing how blind law keepers are to this. That is why Jesus are in human form and obeyed the law as the ONLY human would ever be able to do, then died because of that law so that from thh moment of his resurrection we were new creatures, justified and sanctified by his resurrection. A new way burst forth because the old way was finished. Faith and grace are the only way now. That is why he said it was finished. The law is finished.
12:39. "Have you been reading the Quran? It sounds like it. Every crazy or deadly thing Allah does is justified with "Allah is wise, merciful, benevolent, etc" which basically means the writer did not have a good explanation either, but said don't question it because you can't question Allah."
Why can't you carry on a decent conversation without being a condescending jerk? Who here is reading the Koran? Other than the cult that Wade Cox leads no one here is doing that. Apparently you are though.
Why can't you carry on a decent conversation without being a condescending jerk?
Why must you attack the person of those you cannot refute?
Apparently you are though.
Well, sure I tried reading the Quran. That's called listening to the other point of view and giving it a chance. What's wrong with that? You can't condemn it if you have never looked into it. You on the other hand, presumably refuse to even consider it.
We are sanctified by his blood not his ressurection.
"It is finished" means that his mission on earth was finished. He didn't say the law was fininshed. You seem to be misquoting Jesus. Bad.
If the law is finished, then psycho-killers who believe in Jesus (like the demons do) can march right into the kingdom along with the saints.
....."the Sabbath is NOT a new covenant demand."++++++"The law is finished."
***************
..."I will make a new covenant...will put my law....in their hearts"....Jer 31:31-33.
***************
....."the Old Covenant that was IMPOSSIBLE for every single human being to ever obey. No one ever did".....
***************
Except Elizabeth and Zacharias - Luke 1:6
Can't wait to hear about which humans would be unclean if cannibalism were legal.
Hypocrisy
Those who at one time proclaimed to believe In the Sabbath and law, who now proclaim it is done away with usually do such a huge U turn so that they can justify sexual immorality and sinful defiance.
So, if Flurry wrote this, would it be OK to eat "Laodiceans"?
Anonymous 3:51 wrote, “"It is finished" means that his mission on earth was finished. He didn't say the law was fininshed. You seem to be misquoting Jesus. Bad.”
The Law of Moses is, in fact, finished. There is a, however, a common ground between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. That is because both are derived from God’s eternal moral law. But they are different instantiations designed for different peoples and times.
Here is a conundrum that behooves you to look into it if you wish to present yourself as a Christian. The Jews in the period when the OT was in force were supposed to keep themselves separate from the Gentiles. We find this scripture in the Pentateuch:
“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. (Deut 14:2)”
In practice, this scripture led to this statement by Peter:
“And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (Acts 10:28)”
The Old Testament contained the language of separation between the Jews and Gentiles. The New Testament contains the language of reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles. This topic had to be especially addressed by God for the New Covenant Church through the experience of Peter in Acts.
But if we follow the reasoning of classical Armstrongism, only the sacrifices and the ministration of death were officially dropped from the Law of Moses and everything else was retained. This means that the language of separation between Jews and Gentiles, much more than a jot or tittle, has been retained and Armstrongists must believe that the language of separation is written on their hearts. As Jesus said while he was in the process of fulfilling the Law, “…Salvation is of the Jews.”
Here is the paradox. You are likely a non-Jew (If you are a European and think you are an Israelite, have a genetic test. You will find that your haplogroup is not remotely connected with the haplogroup of Middle Eastern Jews.) So, the separation language of the OT applies to you. You have no right to salvation. Yet, of the language of reconciliation contained in the NT contradicts the OT language of separation. Yet, nowhere does Armstrongism state that the language of separation in the OT has been explicitly abrogated (based on Hoeh’s article titled “Which Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today?”) Armstrongists stand by the jot and tittle interpretation.
And if it turns out that the language of separation has been abrogated (for instance, if you ask your minister for his view), then this is another part of the Law of Moses that was “finished.” Then you need to ask yourself what other parts of the Law of Moses are finished. And you will soon reach the point where you will need to abandon Armstrongism and become a New Testament Christian.
Hawk
Anon11:13,
You still believe that? That has certainly not been the case of those I have known. And, why would it? HWA and GTA among many others indulged in gross lascivious behavior while touting the Sabbath and the Law.
Helpful comment Hawk.
Every argument against the sabbath will have a flaw in it. It's like arguing the earth is flat.
"Every argument against the sabbath will have a flaw in it. It's like arguing the earth is flat."
Every argument denying that the New Covenant does not command sabbath keeping has a flaw in it. It's like arguing the earth is flat, that tithing is commanded, and that British Israelism is necessary to know.
HWA was grateful for the Sabbath, because it kept his congregation indoors on Friday nights so he could safely go out on the town with young Dorothy and not be noticed.
"HWA was grateful for the Sabbath, because it kept his congregation indoors on Friday nights so he could safely go out on the town with young Dorothy and not be noticed."
Careful there son. I see what you did there!
Bob Thiel is having another melt down today over thinnest allegations.
I find it hilarious and hypocritical that delicate church members get over the word "bullshit" when half of what they hear each week is exactly that! They get offended by words when they have ministers that are pedophiles, stalkers, and spiritual abusers.
The old joke from the '60s was that some people wouldn't say $h*t even if they had a mouthful of it! Now I realize that some of you out there are probably saying to yourselves, "Yeah! Says the guy who feels so timid about it that he would spell it that way!" Relax! This is me, merely attempting to be pseudoconsiderate and inoffensive to the repressed and easily offended!
Actually, when you think about it, British Israelism is far more damaging and offensive than a little bit of $h*t now and then!
Some COG members would blow their corks if they knew a certain well beloved evangelist loved to say they”F” word.
Post a Comment