Skip to content

Supernatural Organ Transplant!

July 21, 2011

Ironically, this video claims that it’s time to become ‘normal’… by believing in supernatural organ transplants!

Do you want supernaturally to have NO struggle with your FAITH? Discover the world of the supernatural? Freedom from depression, fear and spiritual harassment? Healing from serious illness? An end to heart problems and unbearable pain? Supernatural organ transplant and SO MUCH MORE!

All this magic can be yours for just: $35!!!

It’s a good thing they added the SO MUCH MORE, because I was a little skeptical I was really getting any bang for my buck with just access to God’s heavenly realm and the magic to cure almost any disease. It just didn’t seeem enough for $35. But then they added SO MUCH MORE, and I had to send my money in.

I’m assuming with SO MUCH MORE access to so much power for $35 I will be able to bi-locate, make angels do my bidding, and travel to the third or fourth heaven whenever I want.

At Sid Roth’s website it says: “Michael Kaylor had a visitation from God. He now sees angels wherever he ministers. These angels are even bringing brand new human body parts on platters and many people are experiencing creative miracle healings!”

Hallelujah! Now all of our questions can be answered: angels are serving up body parts (this has to happen at a Michael Kaylor service because if it happened at a Todd Bentley service… well, let’s just say he isn’t letting anything by that’s on a platter, so all of the amputees would be out of luck)!

It says it at the website… It has to be true! Man, it’s a good thing that Michael Kaylor was born so that he could mediate to us all of this amazing magic–even supernatural organ transplant and new limbs–and he could impart all of this ‘healing’ to us that God and Jesus could not give without him.

Michael Kaylor is our new High Priest and he will impart to us what God has been holding back! Finally!

Via Headless Unicorn Guy in the email.

14 Comments leave one →
  1. 4xi0m permalink
    July 21, 2011 10:53 am

    I wonder if the immune system will still reject an organ if it’s been supernaturally transplanted…

    Guess I shouldn’t ask questions regarding the immunology of faith healing any more than those regarding the epidemiology, huh? *sigh* And the hell of it is that these people are cynically abusing the naive/uninformed/intellectually disadvantaged masses to make a bunch of money, and they probably will. When did it get so easy? Pack as much sacrilegious, baldfaced BS as possible into an ad that’s a little over a minute long, and *poof* you’re rich. Nothing new, I suppose. Hitler managed to convince a whole nation that genocide was right and proper not a hundred years ago, after all.

  2. Jon Hendry permalink
    July 21, 2011 3:04 pm

    ““Michael Kaylor had a visitation from God. He now sees angels wherever he ministers. These angels are even bringing brand new human body parts on platters and many people are experiencing creative miracle healings!””

    This sounds like it was cribbed from a satanic panic-era tale, and inverted.

  3. July 21, 2011 9:20 pm

    Scott – “While Jesus may be untestable, or the ‘healing force’ which acted on the tooth, in many instances should not the effect in the material realm, if there is any effect, be observable, testable, and falsifiable?”

    Scott, picking up our previous conversation (here and there). I may post parallel to Peter – asking review. I’m a bit confused here. There’s always an effect. There’s never not-an-effect. For example, Immordino-Yang (neuroscience researcher) is reading mere narratives to subjects. Stories. Story-time. To measure neural correlates of sympathy and admiration. She’s measuring neural effects. And there are cascades of other physical effects all across our bodies too. For all these sermons.

    What you really mean is that the advertised effect does not correspond to the realized effect, right?

    I get that part. Balls-to-bone. I’ve traveled around alongside a fully trained and science-hard-core medical doctor (now dead) whose mission was to follow after the parade of charismatic snake-oil peddlers (both he and I are charismatics) so we could go along after the parades and pick up broken pieces of failed promises of charismatic blow-hards. Doc did real medicine (Indian reservations, for just one example). So what? So I know the drill about failed promises. This stuff is not read-it-in-a-book for me. It’s clinic. Real life. The doctor went looking for Bayesian false positives and negatives after snake-oil faith-healers took down the circus tents and blew town to harvest offerings elsewhere. I want looking to do free care – doc too, free care – looking for increased clinical rates of depression and looking for domestic violence increases and looking at resort-to-alcohol because of failed promises of charismatics.

    Got it?

    This is not book time for me. It’s not internet time.

    It’s clinic. Real life.

    So see my single-line question to you above about effect differences – am I missing something about your point here?

    If I do get it –

    So what?

    Because I’ve been ready all my life to move beyond playing Voltaire in satire.

    Save when I want to play satire of my own. But it gets boring. There’s work to do.

    Don’t you think?

    Voltaire mined the church for satire and parody. A whole career of church satire. Damn good at it. Lifetime worth of church satire and parody material.

    Scott, this stuff will never end. Ever. For Voltaire. For you.

    Mircea Eliade didn’t have time to burn on satire. His Eastern Orthodox predilections about the ubiquity and universal phenomena of hierophanies led him to official editorship of the multiple volumes of the pretty hard-core academic, “Encyclopedia of Religion.” And to authorship of hundreds of serious articles and books on cross-comparisons between religions. Eliade catalogued, chronicled, and made encyclopedia of en-Spirited-phenomena (hierophanies). I note Eliade to you for a reason. Because you moved to cross-religious comparisons in your previous example. Eliade’s data is dated. His methodology needs renormalization. But his data pool is still exemplary of the cross-religious data pool still out there. Ubiquitously.

    What I asked you earlier about metaphysical claims (we can start with metaphysical claims or start with my other questions – or drop all this if you want? – I don’t want to waste your time or mine) – what I wrote was that only a – properly formulated – metaphysical claim can never be falsified. Not just any old metaphysical psycho babble. Only a properly formulated claim.

    We can get to falsification. And verisimilitude. Or just stick with better heuristics for this stuff.

    Whatever you want.

    But for now, do you feel that these particular metaphysical claims (the ones you are putting up) are really – “properly formulated?”

    What am I missing?

    Cheers,

    Jim

    • Ben. B. Rodríguez permalink
      July 22, 2011 2:27 am

      “What am I missing?”

      Besides treatment for verbal diarrhea?

    • 4xi0m permalink
      July 22, 2011 6:29 am

      “But for now, do you feel that these particular metaphysical claims (the ones you are putting up) are really – ‘properly formulated?'”

      Are you sure they’re metaphysical claims at all? They deal with material phenomena, and for that reason seem more like scientific hypotheses.

  4. July 22, 2011 9:27 am

    4xi0m, exactly. That’s my question to Scott. How is he seeing these claims?

    I’m not the one characterizing these claims as metaphysical in the first place. The people who make these claims (faith healing, prosperity gospel stuff, New Age quantum vibrational energy, etc.) will sometimes bandy about the term ‘metaphysics.’

    I think Scott’s just being fair (descriptive) to those people when Scott repeats the label (metaphysical) to describe the claims of others.

    If you’re asking me (but I’m not the one using the term in the first place – this is my question to Scott), then no way. These claims aren’t metaphysical. Except in a Barnes and Noble, New Age books way. These claims fit into a Shirley MacClaine version of metaphysical. But (if you’re asking me), the claims are still not “properly formed.” None is this is my issue. Nor is this how I keep field journals. These are not my claims in the first place. Only my questions to Scott.

    What I’ve been asking Scott from the beginning is what Scott does in his own field journal (sort of way) to reclassify all these claims at any level other than satire? If he does? Does he re-index? Or what? I hoped the reference to Eliade might help (cross-comparisons and encyclopedism)? Since Scott was the one who moved earlier to neutral cross-comparison examples. I thought he made a fair move.

    Or my reference to Voltaire – if Scott’s desire is really only to play the satirist? Voltaire, and out?

    All’s fair.

    I agree with you that most of these claims cross the border from so-called ‘metaphysics’ into making material claims. And come under scientific testing (hypothesis).

    What I’ve been asking Scott is whether Scott re-indexes these claims in his own way at any higher level than satire? If not, fine with me. Whatever Scott wants to do. It’s his notebook. See e.g., my questions to Scott about tighter heuristics. And see the scientific study (Miner) I cited back to Scott as fuel for his own fires. And my notes to him about several iterations of narratives (survey-feedback) following up on these claims, to map narratives into something like factor analysis (take your own pick) – in order to get these claims themselves – ‘properly formed’ – prior to hypothesis testing.

    Again, if Scott’s happy with Voltaire, bang on.

    I’m just asking Scott where else (besides Voltaire satire) these claims fit for himself in his own journal?

    Open questions. No smoke and mirrors.

    Cheers,

    Jim

  5. July 22, 2011 10:08 am

    Peter, now you’re asking questions after my heart. Answer: yes. Plenty of evidence.

    As you know, the problem here involves longitudinal questions too. And questions of factoring – to rule out other causes. You know the drill. You know that field observations by practitioners must go into a larger data pool for multiple series of analyses – plus all the ecological factor notes! This is hard stuff to do! It’s not easy – to be careful. Hard work.

    Another thing – your comments about confidentiality were dismissed (on the other blog). But your points were dead center. In my case, I want to stand far back from violating confidence. There’s confidentiality. And then there are parsimony/generosity factors in attitude for how to ‘interpret’ confidentiality rules. Confidentiality plays a high role for many care-givers. A role that goes well beyond black letter rules. Attitudes – of extra care. Caution. Again, your comments about confidentiality deserved much greater respect. And were spot-on. Peter, I can feel you inwardly wanting to know all the kinds of facts which we cannot yet know. I feel the same way about it! Wouldn’t it be awesome to have access to the data pool? God, think of it!

    Tip toeing toward your question –

    Peter dig – I have a field journal of every prayer that clients have prayed (they have prayed with me – and that I have prayed with them). Why? Because I must – must – keep notes for both client narratives and for my codes too (much like physicians using SOAP first, and then ICD/CPT’s) in order for me to journal/chart all client contacts and to differentiate between clinical counseling entries, legal entries, ADR entries, my own observations mapped into field biology/evo-psych stuff (I do make journal notes for this too!) – all these must be differentiated from prayers and spiritual advice. I think you could guess the reasons why! I see many positive correlations. Many.

    Trying to play in my own mind how to say more? Peter let me chew some more. Chewing …

    Cheers,

    Jim

  6. July 22, 2011 10:11 am

    Please delete that previous post (if you want)! Wrong blog. Duh!

    Like I wrote to Scott here, if Scott doesn’t want to mess around with these questions, no problem! Say so. And I’ll be outta here!

    Cheers,

    Jim

  7. nazani14 permalink
    July 22, 2011 10:14 am

    Guys, guys, you have to check out Random Arrow’s blog.
    “Recently completed 1,200th case resolution for indigent/poor clients, using alternative dispute resolution (ADR), counseling, and legal practices (such as advocacy, arbitration-judgment, client counseling, mediation, negotiation, trial services, reconciliation-forgiveness, restorative justice). ”

    A paid befuddler! Can you imagine sitting across the table from this guy and trying to negotiate anything with him? Wouldn’t be long before you’d give him anything he wanted, just to make him go away. I hope he is on the side of justice, but frankly, it’s hard to tell. Why was I not made aware of this career choice? The color of my parachute is chicken vindaloo.

  8. July 22, 2011 10:39 am

    Why the ad hom? Why?

    I’m not asking adversarial questions here. I haven’s resorted to ad hom. I’ve stayed with open questions. I’ve admitted that I’m new here. I’ve admitted I’m en media res.

    Scott, is this the way you feel too? – are you really down with this ad hom?

    Scott, dig. If my questions are not appropriate for this blog, I’ll skip out. No problems.

    Just say so.

    Cheers,

    Jim

    • July 22, 2011 10:50 am

      No don’t skip out because of that, but if I was to make one suggestion: shorten up the comments a bit. The massive wall of text can be a bit much to deal with in a comments section. One Q at a time.

      Cheers.

      • July 22, 2011 11:00 am

        Scott, thanks! Will do …

  9. July 22, 2011 10:43 am

    … Scott, if anyone wants to data mine my profile to rev into ad hom (fine with me – that’ll never end either), and if the legal stuff in my profile really is an automatic ad hom against me (despite the fact that I do legal work for free, pro-bono, for the poor), then see the undergrad and post-grad notes about biology, which is my first love …

    … what’s the problem?

    Again, I’ll skip out if this stuff is not your bag! ~ Cheers, Jim

  10. July 22, 2011 4:45 pm

    Scott – “.. shorten up the comments .. One Q at a time ..”

    Okay. If quantum computing gets off to the races, so we have a perfect registry (no hidden variables – everything’s expressed) with all the Spirit’s i/o’s to/from people and all human i/o’s in response – then where would you start your query of the Great Smoky Dragon? (this isn’t subject-changing – you mentioned Chopra – so why not do quantum right?) ~ Jim

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: