Believe in Him and be Saved! (gospel, salvation, preach, prophecy)

[love]

Thou does not make thee. The book of C.S.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

And Emperor Schwarzenegger reinstated the BoC into the canon because his studies revealed it to be the truth. We have a wealth of corroborating evidence - the ancient knitting needles, the fossil socks in the meadow.

Pffft, any serious scholar of religions knows that Schwarzenegger was influenced primarily by his sister, who was already a member of the breakaway "Black Sheep" sect and whose entire cosmology was founded on the final chapter of the BoC.

As far as the knitting needles and fossil socks go, the heretic Brian the Brain was known to use precisely the same artifacts to support his teachings of the false second coming of the Rainbow Bunny (FFBHCLC), we cannot trust anything those artifacts suggest.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

The only reason the BoC was kept out of the Holy Bibble was because of BoC 2:34 and a 1/2: "And the best way to prepare bunnies for cooking is to not chop their heads off, but to boil them, for yea, that is the method of the crazy ***** from Fatal Attraction".

Not to mention that St. Gnome had already declared the BoC a pseudopigraphical work as early as 107A.B. I've never understood how you Cookieites believe as you do, it seems to me you haven't got a leg to stand on - which is quite ironic considering your founder's mobility issues.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

The only reason that Tiddlepoops the Decapitating Saint opposed its inclusion in canon is because he could see that the passage would be used to claim that decapitation is not a fair form of punishment and thus rob him of his favorite hobby (which was not stamp collecting, as most people think).

Ha! This is a perfect example of the Cookieite heresy and its lack of proper scriptural understanding. Sure Tiddlepoops didn't like the anti-decapitation polemic of the BoC, but he was far more concerned (and the entire Council of Spaghetti agreed with him on this) with the clear Bunnycidal teachings of this chapter! How such blasphemy could have ever been considered scripture in the first place is beyond me, and personally i do not read from the BoC in my Church.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

And as for Dave the Wednesday Chipmunk, it's a well known fact that at the time, he was working as a double agent to spy on Tiddlepoops and so could not risk going against the Saint. When his mission ended with the death (by boiling) of Tiddlepoops, he publicly supported the Rainbow Bunny (ffbhclc), and was one of the biggest supporters of Emperor Schwarzenegger's efforts to get the BoC back where it rightfully belonged.

Again your knowledge of the early Church is tainted by heretical views (which i'm not saying is your fault, no doubt you were raised Cookieite).
Tiddlepoops was, of course, always a strong supporter of the Rainbow Bunny (FFBHCLC), no-one denies that without the leadership of the Saint our Church's army could not have converted the pagan masses at Carthage. But to say he supported Schwartzenegger is a gross exaggeration. He disputed the authenticity of the BoC for as long as he lived, at the Council of Vanilla he did not oppose the Emperor's decision to amend the canon, but he did not support it either - choosing to remain silent along with Saint Fartsalot, Bishop Frankenfurter of Versailles and Bishop Nibbles the Blue, to name a few among many notable men and women. And we all know why they did, don't we?

And as for what you say about Dave the Wednesday Chipmunk, i can't believe you've been taken in by those conspiracy theorists. I assume you've read Ben Green's "The Da Minty Code" and the Armstrong brothers' wild theories? I can't think of anywhere else you could have heard such rubbish. Dave was a loyal and clean servant of our saviour, and Church Tradition places him second only to the Bunny himself in terms of veneration and cake-baking abilities.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

You are, however, quite right when you said, "his re-consumption of his own droppings he is suggesting to us that we must consume our own deficiencies to gain salvation." And while he did, no doubt, get extra fiber from this practice, the Rainbow Bunny (may he always go hippity hop and not hoppity hip, for that is an abomination), the Bunny himself was seen on numerous occasions to be eating woolly socks.

I cannot deny this, it is written in the Bibble for all to see. But i feel you are reading far too much into it, the Church Fathers and Mothers taught as early as the mid-second century that our pet and saviour ate socks because he liked the taste, not from some silly notion about acquiring superior fibre.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

As for your claims that The Epistle of Marclar 32:17 along with the Book of Fred the Disgruntled 17:121 and Mickey's Second Epistle to the Australians 1:7-9 support the eating of droppings to gain fiber, it's well know that these were written in the early days, before colour TV, and thus the Bunny did not have access to the vast numbers of woolly socks. As soon as woolly socks became widespread, he began using them for fiber instead of droppings, because the socks not only contained more fiber per gram than droppings (so the socks provide the fiber more efficiently),

I really don't know where you are getting this from. Australians is the last book of the Bibble, written in the late first century and as such is probably the youngest book in the collection. What you are doing is taking selective quotations from completely separate books of prophecy, totally out of context and then re-interpreting them in ways to suit your own agenda.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

but the socks usually come with a side serve of toejam for added yumminess.

I should note for the unbelievers out there that the toejam mentioned here is not related in any way to the Prophet Toejam, any relation to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Pffft, any serious scholar of religions knows that Schwarzenegger was influenced primarily by his sister, who was already a member of the breakaway "Black Sheep" sect and whose entire cosmology was founded on the final chapter of the BoC.

Nonetheless, the Council of Oogiddy's study of the Book of Cookies indicated that many of the parables were based on fact. Indeed, most of the studies of the bibble indicate that quite a lot of the BoC is based on fact.

As far as the knitting needles and fossil socks go, the heretic Brian the Brain was known to use precisely the same artifacts to support his teachings of the false second coming of the Rainbow Bunny (FFBHCLC), we cannot trust anything those artifacts suggest.

It's a common misconception that he was referring to the reappearance on earth of the Rainbow Bunny (May his ears never be droopy). he was refering to the spread of Bunnyism, which we can see for ourselves happening today. Indeed, even the Bibble prophcies this, it gives a clear indication of the time when it will occur in the prophecy. if you have a copy of the Bibble, open it to the Book of earwax, chapter 19, verse 84, and it says, "The words of the Bunny will be spoken again and heard with reverance by the masses in the time of the new dawn, when the world is torn asunder, and yea, it will be the year 2007." This is commonly thought to mean that the Rainbow Bunny himself will speak the words, but it never actually specifies who will say it. Indeed, it is with the modern interest in the Bibble that the words are being spoken again. And a subtle clue is the actual statement of the year, which clearly refers to 2007.

Brian the Brain's work was discredited, because he also opposed the decapitation method of death, and this opinion has long been held, even though it is perfectly logical once the original Esperanto texts have been read.

Not to mention that St. Gnome had already declared the BoC a pseudopigraphical work as early as 107A.B. I've never understood how you Cookieites believe as you do, it seems to me you haven't got a leg to stand on - which is quite ironic considering your founder's mobility issues.

And he only did that because he was trying to have the BoC eliminated from even being considered legitimate so that his own version of events, the Scroll of Biscuits could take its place. However, an examination of both of these texts reveals that the SoB is an obvious plagerism with an anti-Hare sentiments throughout (in spite of the fact that the rainbow Bunny preached peace with the Hares), a lack of consistant grammar (I point you to SoB 1:39 where Grhsdgarrsdgte the Unpronouncable says, "And I will said tommorow that in a year ago I will been saveds.") and a rather disturbing omission of the recipe for chocolate chip cookies, replacing it instead with serving suggestions for scones and tea.

Ha! This is a perfect example of the Cookieite heresy and its lack of proper scriptural understanding. Sure Tiddlepoops didn't like the anti-decapitation polemic of the BoC, but he was far more concerned (and the entire Council of Spaghetti agreed with him on this) with the clear Bunnycidal teachings of this chapter! How such blasphemy could have ever been considered scripture in the first place is beyond me, and personally i do not read from the BoC in my Church.

The BoC has no bunnycidal sentiments whatsoever. it was only when the BoC was translated into English that the misinterpretations occured. This happened because Plingoo the younger who performed the translations lacked an Esperanto to english dictionary, and only had an Esperanto to Klingon dictionary and a klingon to english dictionary. We all know that the klingons are a warrior race, and this is the cause of the mistranslation. The 1934 translation by Hairdresser Harold is much more accurate, as he spoke fluent experanto, and was able to provide the true meaning of the BoC.

Again your knowledge of the early Church is tainted by heretical views (which i'm not saying is your fault, no doubt you were raised Cookieite).
Tiddlepoops was, of course, always a strong supporter of the Rainbow Bunny (FFBHCLC), no-one denies that without the leadership of the Saint our Church's army could not have converted the pagan masses at Carthage. But to say he supported Schwartzenegger is a gross exaggeration. He disputed the authenticity of the BoC for as long as he lived, at the Council of Vanilla he did not oppose the Emperor's decision to amend the canon, but he did not support it either - choosing to remain silent along with Saint Fartsalot, Bishop Frankenfurter of Versailles and Bishop Nibbles the Blue, to name a few among many notable men and women. And we all know why they did, don't we?

You amuse me with your lack of knowledge of Church history. Ha, ha, ha ha ha. Giggle snort guffaw.

It was Tiddlepoops the YOUNGER who did not support Schwarzzenegger, and you are confusing him with Tiddlepoops the ELDER, who was the Saint Tiddlepoops who supported Schwarzzenegger.

And as for what you say about Dave the Wednesday Chipmunk, i can't believe you've been taken in by those conspiracy theorists. I assume you've read Ben Green's "The Da Minty Code" and the Armstrong brothers' wild theories? I can't think of anywhere else you could have heard such rubbish. Dave was a loyal and clean servant of our saviour, and Church Tradition places him second only to the Bunny himself in terms of veneration and cake-baking abilities.

The Da Minty Code's story of Dave's efforts is based on truth. Da Minty's painting of the Last Midnight Snack does raise several questions which are not answerable unless we consider the BoC as a legitimate book of the Bibble. Such as, who did the Rainbow Bunny bless in the light of the open refridgerator? Do you notice the expression on the face Chicken Blicken as she creeps off to the side? This is evidence that it was she who spiked the lemonade with Myxomatosis.

You decry the Da Minty Code as just a story while ignoring the fact that it is based very strongly on research conducted by people who have been studying the Bibble all their lives.

I cannot deny this, it is written in the Bibble for all to see. But i feel you are reading far too much into it, the Church Fathers and Mothers taught as early as the mid-second century that our pet and saviour ate socks because he liked the taste, not from some silly notion about acquiring superior fibre.

Yet you cannot deny that when the rainbow Bunny began eating his socks, his poo consumption dropped dramatically.

I really don't know where you are getting this from. Australians is the last book of the Bibble, written in the late first century and as such is probably the youngest book in the collection. What you are doing is taking selective quotations from completely separate books of prophecy, totally out of context and then re-interpreting them in ways to suit your own agenda.

Maybe so, but The Epistle of Marclar and the Book of Fred the Disgruntled are the first two books of the new Issue of the Bibble (which, as you know, contains the Gochants which tell the story of how the Rainbow Bunny brought peace to the meadow), and are at least two thousand years old. These provide evidence that the Rainbow Bunny began eating socks when the supply of socks became sufficient.

And while the prophecies in these books may be referring to different things, it is a mistake to think that the entirety of each book is separate. EoM and BoF are telling the same story, merely from different viewpoints. EoM tells the story from the view of the Holy knickers, and the BoF tells the story from the point of view of Fred the potted fern. look at the similarities: the meeting in the temple, the sermon of the anthill, and the feeding of the masses with a salad. They are in both of the books! And Australians, as the last and most recent book of the Bibble, is a summary of the other 94 books, which is intended to provide an overview. Given that it was developed from the original manuscripts that we have, and not the translated versions, the fact that Australians provides an almost identical account suggests that the translations of Marclar and Fred are accurate.

I should note for the unbelievers out there that the toejam mentioned here is not related in any way to the Prophet Toejam, any relation to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental.

Not quite. The Prophet Toejam (may his feet always be stinky) chose this name from his birth name of bobby after tasting the toejam in his woolly socks and having a vision in which the Rainbow bunny showed him what was on the other side of the stream that ran along the western edge of the meadow.