How Reading "Mere Christianity" Led A Person To Join Bob Thiel's Improperly Named "continuing" Church Of God.

C S Lewis would be appalled to know that his book, Mere Christianity, led a person to consider the cult of Bob Thiel a legitimate Christian belief system. Mere Christianity's focus is upon Jesus, not on the mindless rants of Bob Thiel who is embarrassed by Jesus. It is shocking to see how easily this person threw any belief in Jesus out the door in order to believe the rants of Theil, the Great Savior of Africa, and now 304 Caucasians.

Thiel's attempts to claim Christian legitimacy by tossing in Lewis to bolster up his miserable belief system is pathetic.

You do not know me or my family but way back when we were called I began a search for truth. 

 

This lead me to reading Mere Christianity then on to understanding the ten commandments and finding a “church” that still followed those commandments which led me to a cross road of Ellen White or HWA. 

 

Before we were baptized by Mr. Way and Mr. Milliach of KC LCG in 2008 you played a pivotal role in my path to finding the Truth of Gods word and HWA. 

 

I bought your book way back when, thought so much of your inspired works. For many of years I had not followed your work as LCG was adamantly opposed to your work to eventually me seeing for myself that I could no longer subject my family to LCG and since having left we have been  without sound teachings UNTIL your sermons lately where I found you teaching relevant truths in bwhich we find ourselves today while ALL are obsessed and purposefully ignorant of many things but you have boldly proclaimed truth.

A little later he starts ragging on the Living Church of God again for refusing to join up with him. The Great Bwana still does not realize that 99% of LCG members know him to be a liar and false teacher. Given that, why would they join up with Bob?

If those once part of my prior group were aware of the truth, more would be with CCOG (note: I do not believe that the current top leader in LCG actually knows the truth about this, so it is little wonder that almost no minister, etc. with them do as well). 

 

Also, earlier this month someone from Arizona also emailed and said he was now going to support CCOG. Furthermore, a couple in the Netherlands who expressed interest earlier, emailed and said they were now convinced to be part of CCOG and asked to be considered as part of us. 

 

We are reaching people, and having people respond around the world.

5 new potential members and Thiel is bragging about how awesome his "work" is growing. So pathetic.

Literalism and Metaphors

 When literalism cannot deal with metaphors.

Is there truth to this statement? 

The "Hand" of the Lord: A Reflection on Communication by Analogy in Scripture

 

The “Hand” of the Lord:

A Reflection on Communication by Analogy in Scripture

By Neo

 

“And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.” Exodus 3:20

I have written two short op-eds that appeared on this blog concerning whether God has a body. The titles are “A Brief Meditation on God’s Transcendence” and “The Transcendence of God and the Ontological Nose.” My position is that God in his essence does not have a body and the Old Testament language that suggests that is just a type of metaphor called anthropomorphism. But does this view excoriate God and the Bible in some way – perhaps raising the issue of misrepresentation? Some may think so and this third op-ed is a clarification of my view – a view which is really the mainstream Christian view.

My viewpoint is that the verse cited above does not mean that God has a hand as a part of his essential nature. And my viewpoint requires some qualification. There are a couple of questions that should be asked as a beginning point for this reflection. If God says he has a hand and he actually has no hand, isn’t that lying? If the Bible states that God has a hand and he really has no hand, does that not make the Bible a non-literal document?

First, if God says he has a hand and he actually has no hand, isn’t that lying? The answer is “No.” There are at least two conditions under which God may correctly use this reference to a hand. First, at the time he spoke the words in this verse, he may have been presenting himself as a theophany. A theophany is a form that God may use to appear to human eyes. In a theophany God may appear in a number of different forms including a human form, a pillar of fire, a burning bush or a whirlwind. If he were presenting himself in human form at the time he spoke these words then he could rightly be said to have a “literal” hand. But having a literal, yet theophantic hand is different from having an essential hand. (We could argue about the difference between the terms “literal” and “essential” but not now.) Second, God may have been using this reference to a hand as a metaphor. The hand is a symbol of his power and ability to act in the Cosmos. God can use metaphorical language to communicate. He used anthropomorphism regarding himself throughout the Old Testament. That is his prerogative. That is how he decided to communicate with human beings for optimal effectiveness. Metaphors create pictures in our minds that we can understand. It’s like if someone said “As soon as I heard the bell, I flew down here as fast as I could.” Everybody knows the person can’t fly but the image communicates, it depicts. In this case, the hand is not literal but literary. The communication is rhetorical but it aptly conveys truth.

Second, If the Bible states that God has a hand and he has no hand, does that not make the Bible a non-literal document? The answer is “Yes.” That should come as no surprise. The Bible is full of literary constructs. “The Lord is my shepherd” makes you into a sheep. But you are not really a sheep. That is only a metaphor. Otherwise, you might be just another hooved herd animal in God’s eyes. 

 

And, in some cases, what was contemporary language to the ancients may now be literature to us. For instance, in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, God does not speak of String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Dark Matter and Black Holes. Instead we find a scenario that seems a lot like ancient Semitic cosmology. That is how God chose to communicate to ancient Semites – communication in context, communication encultured, communication humanized. The point is God can communicate to us as he wishes. Literalism implies that we have created a standard in the use of language and we are going to sit in judgment on the words of God using that humanly devised standard. Where do the proponents of literalism acquire that authority? 

 

Herbert W. Armstrong did not recognize theophany or metaphor. He thought anthropomorphism was accurately describing the essence of God. Likely, he mistakenly thought literalism and truth were the same thing. So he converted God into an analog – an analog that was actually used only to enhance communication. HWA sought objective reality but found metaphor. (This statement may alarm some but everything we know about God we know through analogy.) And HWA’s belief that analogy is essence unintentionally demoted God to mere superhuman status. HWA’s theology did not measure up to his vision, I believe. He envisioned an awesome, great God but his theology pointed to a much smaller version of god that is both immanent and contingent. And his followers do not have a process of doctrinal review and revision so they are left to defend the indefensible.

A theophany or a metaphor does not make a statement about what God is in his essence. He is Spirit in his essence in the words of Jesus. The use of a theophany or metaphor does not make God a liar or the Bible a fraud. It rather makes the Bible communicate effectively to its human audience in a way that God chose.