Rejecting God's Way of Doing Things is a Sure Way to Hell

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighlightsRemixed

'It would not be WWIII since it would have to surpass WWIII'. Can you be more specific on this?

That is as about as specific as I can get. WWIII would therefore occur in the Tribulation, not before the Tribulation.

Quote:

The rest of the above are interpretations of a Bible that has for many times been translated and altered in the spirit of the days this was being done so, but first of all, the Bible is written by humans in a time in which certain understandings were rather primitive.

Scholars agree the transmission of the Bible is 99% correct. This is easily discerned through textual criticism. In a thousand years we will look back upon this day as primitive, but makes no less true the events of our day. We are real people with real souls made in God's image with free-will, will never cease to exist and the same God with the desire to fellowship with us and select a people for Himself for eternity.

Quote:

'God' is a concept explained differently by many 'experts' in the field.

We disagree here on the use of the word 'proved', as it is explained by dictionaries.

Even though the contents of the Bible are known by me, it is my choice to use my own words to reply to your writings. My advice for a more biblical approach concerning this topic is to please read: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/h...eatesthoax.htm Not so much to convince you of its contents, but as an essential piece of information for finding out what some biblical opponents of yours think is the right conception.

Where does your link indicate the writer is a Biblical scholar with credentials of thesis or peer review journal work done on the resurrection? Where does it even address the data surrounding the resurrection of Jesus which is the prescient issue? If you have a problem with this proof by all means let me know, but the proof remains unchallenged and burden remains on you till then.

The proof being, simply, since everything in nature has a cause, it cannot come from nothing, since that which does not exist can't produce anything. Nor can the universe(s) always have existed, because if it did, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. So, therefore, there needs be a cause outside of nature, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God. He necessarily is timeless, spaceless and immaterial. That there are many who abuse the term God does not change the fact of the matter of who God is, by the proof we see in the disciples by their eyewitness testimony of having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. Since they willingly died for this testimony, group hallucinations and other theories don't fit, then there is no naturalistic theory, and thus, proves Jesus raised Himself from the dead, that He is God, created all things, died for the sins of the world, and there is no other name under heaven by which one can be saved. Amen. Unless and until you confront this, you're just shutting your mind down and signing your own name into the book of the damned and blotting it out from the Book of Life.

You should realize the most charities in the world are from Christians. There are almost no atheist, Hindu or Islamic charities by comparison. The false premise of that link is that it assumes there are tonnes of Christians and it shows a person can rationalize anything even in spite of improbable probabilities. But that doesn't agree with the Bible for the Bible calls us a "little flock" and the New City is only 1379 x 1379 miles. You can't fit all the people you claim to be Christians in there. Moreover, the Bible itself speaks against the many false tares trying to look like saved wheat. Wake up! Read your Bible. Stop assuming it says things it doesn't say.

“There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down”—In 70 A.D. this was fulfilled literally. The Roman soldiers under General Titus broke into Jerusalem, burned the temple, and scraped off all the gold which overlaid the stones by turning them over after the gold had melted into crevices between the stones. That was only verse 2 of Matthew 24, lots more to go.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Matthew_24.htm

"The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." All students of Revelation know that this refers to the Romans. After the death of Christ the Jews incurred God’s severe judgment: the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple sanctuary in 70 A.D. Since the term "the people" refers to the Romans, many accordingly think that the term "the prince" obviously points to the Roman prince Titus who led the Romans. But there are many reasons to refute this conclusion. Why is it that the Scripture here does not say the prince shall destroy the city but rather says the people of the prince? Although the prince must work through his people, it is still unnatural to say the people and not directly say the prince. Since the Holy Spirit mentions both the prince and the people, while nevertheless putting a primary emphasis on the people, can it be that He is implying by this that these people represent the people of that prince who is yet to come? If so, then the prince in question here is not Titus, and the people who attacked Jerusalem in the former day were in spirit and in attitude morally the people of the future prince. This prince whom Daniel prophecies about will be a world renown figure in the future, who is the Antichrist. "The prince that shall come" is therefore the Antichrist.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Aids_to_Revelation.htm

Quote:

If Christ would return 'because we are about to destroy ourselves' why only return after this has already nearly taken place?

Stating nobody would be left in case Jesus doesn't return, is an assumption only.

To my opinion, regarding a 'fantasy version of reality'; until now reality has absolutely failed to deliver a single piece of evidence supporting your psychological analyses of your conception of a divine almighty being.

The world doesn't want Jesus here, remember they killed Him before and the Apostles and the Prophets, so Jesus is not going to impose Himself on people. I don't think it is an assumption we would destroy ourselves, since Jesus said it, and He proved He is God by His resurrection; therefore, what flows from his mouth would be true. Your opinion is irrelevant and considered of no account. You would have to overturn the proof given which you have failed to do. Islam says Armageddon must occur for their 12th Imam to arrive and in Islamic culture, Muslims are encouraged to bring world destruction. I am sure they will succeed, so that wouldn't agree much with your theory it won't happen. Actually the Free Masons and financial elite require depopulation through Theosophy as well, so your fantasy life there will be no Armageddon is not reality. Your view is not reality Biblically and it is not reality for naturalists either because it is going to happen anyway. Your atheistic leaders killed over 200 million people last century. Deal with reality!

Quote:

Is it unrighteous to prefer the previous timeline of conventional wars above a nuclear Armageddon which would make this earth a living hell for the very few survivors left?

Can you tell me what you mean with 'in the midst of nuclear Armageddon? Does that mean only after a substantive amount of intercontinental nuclear rockets has already been fired?

The answer to that question would also allow me to possibly reconsider which one of the two scenarios would be worse: the one typified by you as my 'design', but which really is only a estimation of mine, or the scenario as pictured by you.

As according to you Jesus and god are the same, why not the usage of divine and almighty powers to return before an all out nuclear attack is taking place and subsequently also prevent it from happening?

My 'hostile flesh'? Apart from being rather figurative here, my advice to you here is to express yourself in a way less contra-productive to your mission.

Me rejecting 'Gods way of doing things? Strictly seen, the only thing rejected by me, is your personal interpretation of such a concept.

'Want to spend eternity in Hell' because of me rejection'? Not that I would want such a destiny, but why the writing of the word 'hell' with capital 'h'? Would you like to share me in on that one?

Let's presume I indeed did reject 'the ways' of such an almighty being, even consciously doing so.

Would not 'being banned for eternity to hell' as a divine mandatory punishment for what is obvious a very humanly mistake, do away with forgivingness as being one of the pillars of the concept of Christ?

The Bible doesn't say there will be very few left but 2/3rds left. We already discussed this, so why repeat yourself in error? 2/3rds of 7 billion is close to 5 billion left. It wouldn't be righteous to have wars in perpetuity for that is primitive and kills people infinitely so you're dead wrong and dumb for thinking that. You need to get a conscience. You have an evil subterranean motivation. If Jesus were to return before Armageddon, mankind would continue to rely on themselves and still not Him. Man must be convinced He can't do it on his own. And no, Jesus is not the same as God the Father. God the Father is the 1st Person in the Godhead, and Jesus is the 2nd Person in the Godhead. The reason you make these mistakes is because of your flesh: sin of your body and selfishness of your soul, your good self (self-righteous self-exalted self) and petty self. How is that productive of you? Of course, you want to spend eternity in Hell, for you conceded you want to be eternally separated from God. So what's the problem? Why all the fuss?

Quote:

Me twisting things here? To my opinion my argument is solely a case of logically connecting things that need to be connected. When a return would really be due to "his love and mercy to save us" as you say, such a return would certainly not take place somewhere in the middle of a nuclear Armageddon in full swing.

Besides, what has made you come to the wrong conclusion that I wouldn't want an almighty being, full of love, here to stay? Of course such a being would be highly welcomed by me, no matter the period this being would choose to reside amongst us.

The 'fact' we would just destroy ourselves again? Dictionaries explain this cannot be called a fact yet. It's still an assumption.

He returns after the nuclear holocaust, not before. I already said this, why aren't you listening? His love and mercy and grace are what He did for us on the cross to save whosoever is willing and for His elect when He returns, not for you. His return is that of judgment and justice to a wicked world. Jesus doesn't want to return to a wicked world but a world that is judged and condemned for its rejection of Him. Perhaps an analogy would help. Let's say there are a bunch of rapists and murderers in jail for life. A prison riot breaks out and half the population of the prison survive. Do you really think the guards if they returned before the breakout would prevent the inmates from doing again what they would have done if they could have done it? Of course not. And why would they even want to return before then anyway since those inmates are in Hell for life? It is only out of judgment and justice they return before they kill all of each other, so those that remain realize they need the guards. You reject what Jesus did for you on the cross, what makes you think you would accept Him when He returns? I don't see it in you. What pretentious thoughts you have. Your heart would remain the same. His return, therefore, is for the sake of the elect, not for you. You are going to spend eternity in Hell since you reject God's way of doing things. How sad for you. I am truly truly sad for you.

Quote:

So because of Jesus never having killed anyone, Christians neither have fought battles in his name? Could you provide me with a more convincing argument concerning this? The more so because it is my understanding of history shows different.

'A lie just as yours is'? There's a big difference between a misconception and a lie, as you claim is mine. How could it be a lie of me while it is purely a conception of mine you are reacting to, being it a right one or not?

And again, the use of terminology that easily tends to insult the very people you so eagerly want to convince, only works contra-productive.

Obviously your understanding of history is false since where would Jesus do that? Murder is wrong. Period. You murder someone, Hell is your future. They can call themselves Christians or naturalists, but who cares what they call themselves. The Bible says we shall know them by their fruits. I don't see your misconception as not being a lie, because you willfully assume falsely without evidence. If it doesn't agree with the Bible then you are sinning bearing false witness by your fleshly overassuming. Having a conception doesn't get you off the hook. Part of the Gospel of Salvation is mentioning Hell. You should know then that since Jesus is proven to be God then according to Jesus you are going to Hell for rejecting His love, mercy and grace. You treated your loved ones as something, as idols. Surely any reasonable person can see that! Since you reject the Gospel, I am making it clear to others that you are like the Pharaoh who hardens his own heart, so God hardens it further. As you wish. You're a bad person through and through.

Quote:

Indeed my estimation is that much more than one third of humanity will die after a nuclear Armageddon, this not only as a result of the devastation directly caused by the massive amount of nuclear weapons that will be used in such a scenario, but the more so because of the indirect devastation it will cause.

Because of the consequences of sudden huge physical shortage of oil, and because of the little oil that still could be distributed, would be priced far beyond what all the poor countries and their many inhabitants, mainly living in huge cities, could afford. This by itself could easily cause one third of the human population to die, as the populations of these countries make up for an overwhelming majority of world's human population.

And on top of that, what would be the long lasting damage to a viable earth, after swarms of intercontinental nuclear rockets having reached their goals? Most likely the survivors will envy the death.

Since your view of how many will die in the Tribulation is not what the Bible says, then your issue is not with the Bible but your own delusional fantasy life, like you are having a twisted argument with yourself. Death will be envied in the last 24 months of the Great Tribulation after the nuclear holocaust in the 2nd woe, but don't think in that 24 months another 1/3 will die. Even if it did, there would still be nearly 2.5 billion on the planet. In either case it doesn't fit your theory there would be few people left. Obviously people would relocate areas that are least affected by the radiation. Probably all of United States would be uninhabitable which fortunately is separated by two oceans on either side to minimize the fallout to other countries. South America and South Africa could have some pockets unharmed. But Europe, China, Korea, all Islamic countries, and India would be devastated. The miracle in all of this is the nuclear explosions are far away enough from The 3rd Temple in Jerusalem that it will not be impacted by the radiation. Part of the reason for this I believe is because the armies of the world congregate in the middle east over oil, so they would not want to nuke their own armies.

Even at the end of the Tribulation, you will continue to hate God. "Men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great" (Rev. 16.21). They "blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores [from radiation and the implant], and repented not of their deeds" (v.11). "They gnawed their tongues for pain" (v.10) just like Jesus' tongue cleaved to his mouth on the cross when you put Him on the cross as killed Him. Make no mistake about this nuclear holocaust: "power was given unto him to scorch men with fire" (v.8). But still you will not repent. "And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory" (v.9). "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed [is] he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments" (v.15). This could be referring to the saved harvest (14.14.-16), or this passage could be referring to those after the resurrection and rapture who are waiting to be gleaned. I believe it refers to those who are gleaned after the harvest in gathered but before the battle is fought. The battle is fought after the nuclear exchange since nuclear exchange in Revelation 9 occurs in the 2nd woe, whereas the army itself only congregates in the 2nd woe, but actually fights in the 3rd woe, the last 24 months of the 7 year Tribulation.

Quote:

It is your absolute right to ventilate your opinion here, being it right or not, but again, doing so in the above manner works only contra-productive to what you're supposed to achieve.

Not at all. You're just making excuses for yourself, like a teenager blaming his parents. What is shown is nothing will convince you, thus what can Jesus say to you right here and right now but you are "condemned already" (John 3.18). This would be for the sake of others not to go down your path.

Quote:

Do you really label your parents (or possibly, also children) as 'something'?

No, you label your parents and possibly children as "something" since like I said, "you have an idol for yourself" you place above God. You treat them as something, not genuine people. They are a tool for you in your hostility towards God. You're pathetic!

Quote:

Again, this approach works very contra-productive to what you are supposed to achieve whit your writings.

Do really mean 'truly very sad' for me? Please, get over it, as far as it is of my concern, you don't have to feel saddened because of the personal predestinated doom that is allegedly waiting for me, since there is not such fear that has a hold on me. My wish for you is that this sadness of yours hasn't too much upset you, because with a world as it is nowadays, you must have already gone through many of these very sad experiences before, and will certainly have to face many more of them to come.

Please understand that even though this correspondence has changed from character, any reply of yours, be it again mainly containing your own words, is still welcomed by me. As you have done so with my previous reply, it would be also appreciated if you would add this one to the same URL.

Regards, HighlightRemixed.

It is very productive to show you are going to Hell, so others won't be like you. Christians are not like you. We have compassion for others. We have empathy for you and your lost condition. You express how you would NOT care for others in dire straits. Christians shed a tear for you, but praise God, He says we will no longer shed a tear for you in the New City and New Earth because you will truly be where you belong in Hell. Think how twisted your thoughts are. Let's say a teenager is on drugs. The position you are taking is her parents should not cry out to God for her salvation, because in your words "there is not such fear that has a hold on me" if you were this person in your despicable delusional state. The irony is in fact, you are very fearful, so afraid to let go of the control you have of self, to place your trust in Jesus. You're a scared little man. You are not predestinated for Hell because God gave you no opportunity for salvation. He has given you more than sufficient grace that you reject. Christians like myself are sojourners; we are in the world, but not of the world. This makes us even more compassionate.

My prayer is that as the years go by from time to time you review this discussion about your character and possibly some other people in your circle of influence also may be happenstance come across this information as well so they can guard themselves against you. Amen.