There are two "great tribulations": one before the 2nd coming and one after. The final one, of course, leads into Armageddon. The first one, which was "cut short" because of the holy ones, and that is completely over before the 2nd coming was the HOLOCAUST. The "holy ones" are Jews and JWs. Matthew 24:29, something the WTS clearly doesn't understand: "Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days... the sign of the son of man will appear in heaven..." Thus the first "great tribulation" is totally over before the 2nd coming occurs. Of course, the "great tribulation" connected to Armageddon does not occur until after Christ arrives and his angels have sealed all the elect. But since we're dealing with fear factors here, it appears the final "great tribulation" will be triggered by the death of "Babylon the Great" at the hands of the U.N. and thus suggests the context of a global ecomomic meltdown that gets blamed on international banking, which is a part of BTG. Of course, the world economy has already crashed once lately, only being saved by big bail-out emergency funds. So the idea of economic insolvency, even of the U.S. is already a reality. Of note though, apparently after this economic global crisis U.N. rule will attain some degree of "peace and security" after which Armageddon will ensue. Armageddon will eliminate the worldly governments by killing off the people who are loyal to them. The context reflects lots of dead bodies eating by birds, so it may be like when the Israelites left Egypt and Jehovah's angel killed all the firstborn males of Egypt. That is, people will be dropping dead if not at the hands of their companion, which is God will cause. So that is somewhat stressful as well. What will likely NOT occur, is the concept that Jehovah will use destructive natural forces like massive earthquakes and hurricanes, etc. to destroy the wicked. To the contrary, the survivors of Armageddon are said to inherit the world as part of the "spoils." Why destroy the the world's wealth and infrastructure along with the people so that the survivors inherit a pseudo post-nuclear world, where everything has to be rebuilt? Why not just kill off the people? Governments do not exist in buildings, it exists in the minds of the people. Thus the context of lots of dead bodies whose flesh will be eaten by the birds and not so much the thunder and lightning and earthquakes the WTS represents as Armageddon. So in other words, the day after Armageddon is over, there will be a big shopping day when the survivors will rush the malls and grab whatever they want for free! It will be a happy time. Not a few survivors poking their heads out from underneath the rubble of destroyed cities, etc. Instead, we will be choosing our fine new homes from the nicest, now empty neighborhoods! That's not to say Armageddon and the economic pressures preceding it will not be quite stressful--it certainly will be. There might be a rush on food, so having money will not be an issue. The "days were cut short" for the first great tribulation, which was the HOLOCAUST, because the prophesied 2/3rds of the Jews that were to exterminated was attained by the Nazis by late 1944 (Zech 13:8). The period of tribulation was to be 1 week, or 7 years from 1940-1947. Apparently the post-advent tribulation may parallel the first by being shortened. The timing from the destruction of BTG, the fourth beast, until the nations are destroyed is "a time and a season" or 15 months. So perhaps the economic severity or disruption of food sources would be too severe over that period of time so the GT and Armageddon have to be cut short to a period less than 15 months overall. At any rate, it will not be a piece of cake by any means. So some anxiety in anticipation is natural and warranted. It will be a time of stress and a test of our endurance and survival skills. But it will not be about dodging lightning bolts or lava flows or floods as the WTS depicts. In the meantime, it can start at any time because we are indeed on the verge of a global economic crisis, are we not? LS
Larsinger58
JoinedPosts by Larsinger58
-
20
Great Tribulation: Thank God It's Not true
by Red Piller ini grew up dreading the gt.
armageddon not so much.
i was a pretty good kid so i figured i'd be saved.
-
-
66
The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth - Matt 5:5 anyone?
by punkofnice inon another thread concernedjw used an interesting quote from jesus at matt 5:5 'the meek shall inherit the earth.
' fair comment i'd say.
but jesus didn't say 'paradise' earth.. now i know some of you don't believe in the bible (which i respect), and i'm not after a debate.. what i'm interested to hear is how you would refyte that jesus was not talking about a jw 'paradise earth'.
-
Larsinger58
SAC sed: "Heb 1 goes out of the way to demonstrate that Christ CAN'T be an angel, to read anything different is, well, ridiculous." Interesting. Others think that what is "ridiculous" is thinking the Bible could make any sense out of comparing God with an angel in the first place. Why the comparison? Thus Heb 1 proves Jesus must be some sort of an angel by the comparison with angels. That is, the comparison was to distinguish the specific distinction between Jesus and the other angels. That is, nobody compares dogs to elephants, but one might compare a poodle to a collie. Jesus, of course, per 1 Thess 4:`5 is definitely Michael, the archangel. Hebrews thus makes the distinction between Jesus and the other angels by supplementing why he is called the ONLY-BEGOTTON son of God, versus the other angels who are not directly begotten by the Creator. As the Bible says, everything was made by, for and through Christ. Thus Christ was the first being created by God, after which he was used to create all other things. The act of creation is by the "word", i.e. "let there be light", etc. Jesus Christ, if you will, was like a magic wand that God used to create all things, that is, all other things than Christ. But first God had to create the magic wand himself directly. The words he used to create Chirst was: "Today I have become your father..." etc. Those are the actual words of creation that had to be uttered by Jehovah himself in order to create Christ, the "first born of all creation." After that, it was Christ who uttered the words based on God's instructions and thus be came known as "The Word" of God. That is what makes Christ unique, an "alpha and omega" (i.e. unique creature, one of a kind, beginning and ending of his kind) like Jehovah God. Christ has the unique distinction of being created directly by God. All other things are created indirectly by God through Christ. So while some thinks Heb 1 by comparing Christ to the angels is establishing he is not an angel, a more astute observation is that he must be an angel based on the context of the comparison itself. Heb 1 is showing the distinction between Christ's angelic nature and that of the other angels. Thus, it could be said it is "ridiculous" to compare a god to angels vs comparing one type of angel to another. The comparison alone confirms Jesus must be an angel. Thus my 2.5 cents. LS
-
6
Jehova's witness and the contradictions of modern science question mark!
by libraryofalexandria ini grew up as a jehova's witness but drew apart in my early teens.
i'm in my late 20's now and i am wondering if any of you more experienced jehova's witnesses or ex-jehova's witnesses can say anything about the organizations belief or where they may contradict in relations to modern astrophysics and/or physics.
is it simply a game where the more science is discovered the more jehova's witness's beliefs bends to fit the mold?
-
Larsinger58
In a sense, the Bible acknowledges the strength of Satan's propaganda through science. As a defense to that, which can't be defended on a practical level right now, unless you go study science and get a degree in some specialized field and offer a counter opinion, Jehovah appears more directly to the elect. He either appears to them directly, as in my case, or Christ has appeared to them, or they witness miracles like the holy spirit or the "sign of the son of man" that convinces them that God is alive and does exist, that is, the god of the Bible. So when some scientist claims to present some irrefutable evidence, it is not proof the Bible is false or that God is not real. It's just a contradiction that needs to be further studied. By making direct appearances to the elect, God overcomes any worries they have about his existence or that science contradicts reality.
Thus we know something is probably being misinterpreted by the scientists or they are missing something they cannot see or know about since the Bible is true and cannot be contradicted. But it takes a lot of faith just to believe the Bible with all this counter-intelligence which the Bible describes as being like a river disgorged from the mouth of Satan to drown the elect, who are represented by the woman who dwells in secret in the wilderness. But the earth swallows up the river so she is not drowned. When you have direct proof of God via direct interaction, it swallows up the claims of science where it contradicts the Bible. They may not have the scientific response to those claims, but it doesn't matter because they know for a fact that God is real and the Bible is true. So they just chalk it up to a mystery that will be explained later.
LS
-
3
Matthew 24:14 is an energy source
by sabastious inrewind to the great disappointment.. the bible at the time, at least where i come from, was very revered amongst almost any demographic.
a real source of energy if one could only "explain it.".
i'd be willing to bet that matthew 24:14 was used, as it still is today, as a means to measure groups that were attempting to organize and preach the gospel.. matthew 24:14 - and this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.. questions that may have been asked about groups of that day:.
-
Larsinger58
The "end" is not Armageddon but the end of the gentile times, which ended in 1947.
The "good news" is preached by the TEMPLE organization, which is JWs.
So that was fulfilled in 1947. NH Knorr, then president, literally went on a world-wide speaking tour early in 1947, and then the "end" came on November 30, 1947. That is when the Jews formally came out of exile and were restored to their promised land to fulfill Bible prophecy.
Who has "good news" besides JWs? Who preaches about a paradise earth and eternal life? That's very good news, is it not? No more sickness or death. Strange these passages are right there in the Bible but few in Christendom pay attention to them.
Of course, the WTS is only the "temple sect" until 1996. That is when all the covenants end. The one with the Jews and the one with the JWs. Jews and JWs are linked together, particularly during the Holocaust.
JEWS AND JWS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnTy8_EhE0Y
LS
-
5
CONVENTION RELEASES
by St George of England incan anyone please tell me which talks at the convention are used for the new releases?.
i just cannot manage to sit through all three days but would like to get the releases.. many thanks in advance.. george.
.
-
Larsinger58
I'm so totally bored by anything the apostate WTS has, I can't even be mildly interested. It's like touching something unclean to me.
But it looks like I'll get stuck going to the convention this year. My parents are elderly and need assistance; both are active witnesses. This might be the last convention my mom will be able to attend, so I'm doing it for her, she's partially crippled. The past conventions was just an excuse to distribute apostate literature. I used to arrive early and insert my one-page flier inside the magazines and books the witnesses leave to hold seats. Of late, with the heightened security, I've lost my nerve. So no plans of "counter intelligence."
I've always liked the people though. There's always that underlying tension of trying to find a potential mate, so many are dressed to impress. Hopefully I won't have to actually attend after getting my parents situated. I can escape and hang out in my motel room or go sight-seeing or something. Anyway, it's a chance to get out of town, which I seldom do. You can always look at the bright side. Staying at home watching TV in my motel room works for a few days. I'm debating whether to take my computer. I think I can stand being offline for 3 days, but maybe not. Right. Being online is a great time consumer and will make the time go by faster. Maybe I can report my daily experience and shock if I attend. Maybe I'll pick up on some subliminal mind-control they are fostering now.
Keep in mind the WTS clearly knows it is apostate at this time. It knows Jesus didn't die on Nisan 14 and have enough information to know that the 1st of Cyrus must be dated to 455 BCE now, but they insist on continuing the lie going. They are opposing Christ and Jehovah knowingly at this point.
Oh well, it's not a life's sentence so I suppose I will survive.
If I take my computer I'll keep you posted.
LS
-
6
Human Ancestor Older Than Previously Thought; Finding Offers New Insights Into Evolution
by whereami inhuman ancestor older than previously thought; finding offers new insights into evolution .
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110629181853.htm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=feed%3a+sciencedaily+%28sciencedaily%3a+latest+science+news%29.
sciencedaily (june 30, 2011) modern humans never co-existed with homo erectus -- a finding counter to previous hypotheses of human evolution -- new excavations in indonesia and dating analyses show.
-
Larsinger58
ROFL!!!
This just shows how science can deceive itself and others.
LS
-
7
Isaac Newton is an anointed Christian.......
by Slidin Fast instartfragment.
did anyone else pick up the wild assertions in the dc.
henry grew, george storrs and isaac newton were part of the anointed.
-
Larsinger58
Of the anointed? Is anyone going to mention the claims that he was a Freemason?
http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/book_bauer.html
Sir Isaac Newtron wrote about chronology and published his "A Short Chronicle" where the details of Neo-Babylonian and Persian history are found. Freemasons the "Illuminati" have a special tie to the popular chronology which they know is incorrect. So Newton and his credibility factor as someone being smart and scientific adds credibility to that fake timeline. That is, more than likely Newton understood the timeline was false but felt it important to add his credibility to the false timeline and explain some of the glitches.
What is interesting is that you can see how trying to establish the phony timeline by modern Freemasons has changed since Newton. Newton, for instance, clearly represented Darius the Mede as a real person and recognized him in the esoteric histories of Xenophon and Herodotus, easily done by comparisons of what Darius the Mede did in the Bible. But now there is a near total denial that he ever existed or that he was somehow actually Cyrus (i.e. CO Jonsson). That is in the face of the "daric" which was first coined by Darius the Mede and is named after him. So I guess at this point, Newton is somewhat of an embarrassing and out of date reference to the phony timeline. Of interesting note, also, is that Newton clearly understood Darius the Mede abdicated to Cyrus after a 2-year reign while the Jews were still in exile. The Bible actually establishes this was a 6-year rule. Now, the WTS and others like CO Jonsson wants us to think the rulership by Cyrus was parallel to the rule of Darius the Mede and he is accorded no years of sole rule, which is just a joke, especially when you see how Newton lays out the timeline.
So he is more likely an "anointed" Freemason than an anointed Christian in my opinion. It all boils down to whether he was privy to the original chronology and timeline or not? If he was in the higher echelons of Freemasonry, then he certainly would have known about the alternative chronology and the revisions.
Anyway, it is interesting to contrast his timeline with that of Carl Olof Jonsson. That is, just to compare and note the differences, particularly in reference to Darius the Mede, who has been seen as a liability historically of late. He wasn't suppressed in the time of Sir Isaac Newton, but there seems to be a need to suppress him now. Maybe the issue of the "70 years" of exile has become the more recent focus and a non-existent Darius the Mede accommodates the new theories. ??
One theory is that the "Illuminati" was then and now currently behind the revised timeline, for various reasons, and Newton was used to help validate it, knowingly so.
My research even turned up a reference that knew that Aristotle and Socrates were lovers. Thus the boy-lover (eromenos) of Socrates in the revised history, "Phaedo" is really a reference to Aristotle, who with Plato and Xenophon revised the Greek history of that time involving Socrates and the Peloponnesian War, etc.
Aristotle and Socrates were Lovers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMe7ITseyEI
LS
-
17
God blamed satan?
by Joey Jo-Jo inex-15:3 the lord is a man of war: the lord is his name.
nasb.
ex-32:14 then the lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
-
Larsinger58
Sympathy for Satan? Two things.
1. I was present (in spirit) in 1992 when the "battle in heaven" took place between Michael and Satan. I was not yet combined with Jesus at the time. The battle in heaven was not with any kind of weapons, but with words. It was a court hearing. Satan was on trial to decide if he deserved death or not. Ultimately, all of Satan's "excuses" or legal claims blaming God for this and that were considered no lo contendre except for one thing. That is, for however much Satan may have been frustrated or blamed God for his final condition, there was no legal or moral basis to drag anyone else into the conflict. Satan decided, thus, out of spite, to cold-bloodily kill off billions of innocent mankind. What was that? On what basis could there ever be an excuse to kill others because of your personal issues. Satan wanted to commit suicide as a political message. Fine. But what excuse did he have to kill off any innocent people? None. There is no legal precedent for that and so Satan was condemned to death on that one count. He was shown to be politically and philosophically dishonest. If he felt God's rule was unjust or inadequate or oppressive. Fine. But why become a serial killer?
You can have a political view and stand up for that view, but what possible excuse is there to kill off innocent people, clearly to do damage. That is, Satan was a sore loser. So he was condemned to death, not because of any of his other issues, including blaming God for his condition, but because he took the low road of vindictiveness and took the opportunity to murder innocent people. What did mankind having life to do with Satan's issues with God?
2. But on the other hand, just so we didn't have to hear all of Satan's legal arguments, even if he had some legitimate claims or complaints, God basicall decided to kill of everybody. Everybody in heaven and earth. That was based on his legal right to limit the lifespan of creatures he granted life to. Just like dogs and cats and rabbits and trees have a lifespan. They are born, grow up, have several generations of offspring then get old and die. It's still glorious, but temporary. So God basically said, "Okay, everybody has to die at least once, just as part of the natural process." That was not discriminatory. That is, EVERYBODY from Jesus Christ/Michael, his chief son and only-begotten son, down to the worst human criminal had to die and experience death. Simple. Only, once experiencing death, if God wanted to, he could bring back whomever he wanted in the resurrection. That had nothing to do with death. So since everybody had to die anyway, whether sinful or not, the legal issues to condemn God for anything just didn't matter. Satan could fight for his life in the court of heaven all he wanted to, it wouldn't matter, he would have to die just like every other angel, including Jesus Christ. Except, Jesus Christ and the faithful angels would be coming back after death and Satan wouldn't.
It's the perfect solution. Satan's tyranny would end and his big mouth would be silenced at the same time. That was worth it to the faithful angels and Jesus Christ to suffer a short-lived death if it meant getting rid of Satan.
So ultimately, based on #2, God is pleading "no contest" to any of Satan's issues. All the complaints Satan wants to air against God were scheduled to be heard 2 days after Satan's demise. Of course, Satan will lose all his arguments by default because he will be a "no show." Satan is pissed off because God played the ultimate ace in the hole, which was the right to kill everybody for no reason, just to underscore the fact that LIFE is a gift and not a right.
But really, what is "death"? The horror of death or non-existence increases in severity with its length or permanence. Death is a horror is it is permanent. But how much of a sting is it if you come back after 3 minutes? That's the power of DEATH. It's not whether you die or not, but how long you are dead.
So on this level, God is not condemning or invalidating Satan's issues at all. He is exercising his right to kill off anyone after a certain time and he does that indiscriminately to ALL, every angel, including Jesus Christ. So what has Satan got to complain about?
In the end, as well, Satan's murderous act to kill lots of good people was invalidated by Christ's ransom sacrifice.
That's why Christ has little tolerance for humans who think they have some concept of fault with God, after all he has done to save them. So it's is a lack of appreciation for life itself that many will suffer permanent death. Without life, what is there?
The thing is, as I've observed by the way everything is going down, that those who are glad to reject God or condemn him or have sympathy for Satan have long ago been condemned themselves. It's one of those things that we can't explain. It's like a couple who have each decided to break up with the other but soon the focus is on who broke up with whom? Somehow that seems to matter. You'd think if one found out the other was unhappy then they'd feel better this was best for both. But who left whom first? It's like a woman who finds out her husband has cheated on her and she decides she wants a divorce and she's planning this big scene to throw the husband out of the house and tells him to pack his bags and when she gets there, she finds out he has long been packed up and gone and is on a cruise withi his new love. She didn't get a chance to say her peace and curse him out or get any kind of closure. He was already gone. Thus the satisfaction of leaving him is lost. She realizes she got dumped and not the other way around.
At one point Satan likely realizes he was never part of God's big plan in the first place. It's like sewing. In order to sew something you need so much thread. You have so much thread to pull together the garment. But you need some extra thread in the beginning to go through the machine in order to apply that thread. But in the end, after the garment is finished, all the extra thread is no longer needed and is thrown away. So that thread served it's purpose. It was needed to complete the garment but not be a part of it.
So it was all part of the BIG PLAN from the beginning. FREE MORAL AGENCY by its nature presumes some will make a choice not to serve God. It's like an airline that figures some people will cancel their flight, a certain percentage. So they overbook the flight so that it will still be full, anticipating a certain percentage will be no shows. So God did the same thing when he introduced free moral agency. He had to plan that some would not accept the offer of life and so he created more angels than he needed so in the end, after some rebel, he still has the right amount he intended.
So feel all the sympathy for Satan you wish. He is not unjustly being put to death because God puts everybody to death, good or bad, human or angel. Thus God cannot be accused of being "evil" or "unjust." It's only about his right to extend the gift of life to whom he wishes.
This way, God has the best of both worlds. He gets rid of Satan permanently, which is in the best interest of the good people in the world, AND, he doesn't have to listen to a single word Satan has to say in complaint since it won't make one bit of difference is he's right or wrong, justified or unjustified, if he's not alive. So you feel sympathy for Satan? Fine. God is claiming "no contest" to all that is claimed against him. But it will never get heard in court because Satan won't be alive to bring up these charges. Anyone who wants to have their case heard has to schedule court time after they've died.
So for those who want to blame God? Go ahead. Because likely he has long ago rejected YOU. Those who want to arrogantly say, "no thank-you" to God and the gift of life, will proudly plan to turn in their ticket to life and choose to die with their honor, only they will find they were never issued a life ticket in the first place. They can't find it. The envelope was empty from the beginning.
That's why Gehenna is represented as such a place of eternal torment. Those in it die without the satisfaction that they rejected God before he rejected them. Those who reject God are among those God didn't like in the first place. Those who join Satan were those whom God would have killed off anyway, so Satan gains very little or nothing at all.
WHO IS GOD? Who God is has to be based on the final result and thus the final goal. The final chapter are righteous people living in peace and happiness on the earth and in heaven. That's who God is. Getting there has been painful and expensive, but in the end, it will be worth it?
Think living forever on the earth will be boring? If you're materialistic it might be. But if you love people, it will be so much fun. Imagine say 4 billion people on the planet who are granted everlasting life? Before you can get bored to death, you'd want to meet everybody on the planet first, right? Alsol, you'd love to live in every house on the planet just once to experience what life is like in different places on the globe. So let's say, everybody is like the angels and are androgynous. No male or female. No new babies needed. Everyone is in an open "marriage" with each other, so you can have sex with anyone and everybody else. So let's say every other year you are assigned to live with a different person as a partner in some new place on the planet? On your alternative year, you can do whatever you wished to do. That process in the first cycle would take 8 billion years! That's how long it would take to fall in love with and have sex with everybody else on the planet. 8 billion years! So who has time to be bored? Life in the new order will make "The Happy Hooker" seem like a prison sentence. :>
Anyway, I've made a new pact with myself to keep my posts short, 200 words or less.
OOOPS!
LS
-
33
See John 1:1 with your own eyes: Bible translators have translated Latin, not Greek.
by Wonderment in<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } p { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> .
in principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud deum et deus erat verbum -- latin.
in beginning was verb and verb was with god and god was verb.. .
-
Larsinger58
LOOK folks. The only real considereation here is whether or not John 1:1 contradicts Jesus' identity as desmontrated in the rest of the Bible.
And what is Christ's identity? He is God's son and Michael the archangel. Now does John 1:1 contradict that?
Not if it is translated as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was god." Note, I didn't say "a god."
So what is John 1:1 saying? He is merely saying that the Father created a son-god. John 1:18 calls Jesus the "only-begotten god in the bosom position of the Father."
And what does the Bible mean by only-begotten? Well what does it sound like? It sounds like Jesus was the only god begotten by Jehovah. How so? Because we know that the creation of Jesus was unique compared to the creation of all other creatures. That is, the Bible clearly says all things were created by, for and through Christ. This makes Jesus a unique being compared to all the other creatures. So "only-begotten" means that Christ is the only creature that God had to directly create. Jesus was used to create all other things.
A bad example of this concept is if you imagine God as the creator needing a magic wand to begin creation. Well, first, God has to create the magic wand. The magic wand he created was Jesus Christ. Then after creating this special magic wand directly, he now can just wave that wand and create all kinds of other things. Thus all things are by and through this magic wand.
But there's no trinity here. John 1:1 doesn't say: "In the beginning was the Word and the Holy Spirt, and the Word and Holy Spirit were with God, and the Word and Holy spirits were gods." So...
1 Thess 4:15 clearly shows Christ is Michael the Archangel. If you begin there and expand on that, you can't go wrong.
LS
-
63
Idle question about Abraham and Human Sacrifice
by corpusdei ini don't have my usual resources in front of me, so i can't fact check this, but there's been something bothering me.
one of the things mentioned quite often as evidence of the wickedness and evil practices of the false religion that surrounded ancient israel is the practice of child sacrifice (baal and molech being the frontrunners as i recall).
but ...... didn't god tell abraham to kill his own son isaac as a human sacrifice?
-
Larsinger58
Two things:
1) God loved the world so much he was willing to sacrifice is his only-begotten son to save the world. So what Abraham did to Isaac counterparts what Jehovah did to Jesus Christ at one point. If anything, it underscores the enormity of the price paid to save YOU/US.
2) But Satan, the great propagandist and legalistic mind, finds hypocrisy in the way Jehovah handled things. Thus inspiring the death of babies relates to precisely how Jehovah was able to get rid of Satan. That is, basically Satan had made himself/herself a huge pain in the ass up in heaven, but there was no SIN in heaven, and angels didn't naturally die though they were mortal, so the universe was going to have to deal with Satan basically forever. So God basically decided to exercise his right to limit the lifespan of any of his creatures. Just as he limites the lifespan of animals or plants, he would limit the lifespan of the angels across the board. But he couldn't discriminate in this manner, he'd have to kill everyone. That is, he would have to kill all the angels, including his only-begotten favorite son, Michael/Jesus.
From Satan's perspective, this was like God causing all his children to "pass through the fire" as it were, and in Satan's mind, that was similar to or no different than the horror of parents causing their beloved children to pass through the fire in order to please God.
But, also, similar to the case with Isaac, those children, out of love for God, were willing to do that. Thus what happened up in heaven is at one point God asked of the loyal angels would they be willing to die for a short period of time, under the right to limit lifespan rule, if it would get rid of Satan? Of course, they were willing to do that, whether they came back or not, since Satan was disturbing everything in heaven. BUT, of course, there is this caveat about everybody being forced to die at least once. That caveat was, that while God had the right to limit the lifespan of all creatures, including the angels, he also had the right to resurrect angels or anything else for that matter, back to life. Only thing is, while the death sentencing was generalized and applied to all without discrimination, the resurrection would be for only those whom God wanted to extend eternal life to.
So in other words, God saw the benefit of getting rid of Satan by throwing out the baby with the bath water, but only because he knew he could retrieve the baby later.
So basically, you could say God approached Satan one day and said, "Satan? Guess what, you bitch! I've come up with a novice legal concept. What do you think about it? I'm God, the creator and I can give and take life. That's my right. Life is a gift. I've decided to limit the life of angels and so I'm going to require all the angels to die (i.e. "pass through the fire"). Every last one, even your brother and husband Jesus Christ/Michael."
Satan probably said, "Well, that's your legal right if you want to do that. I think it is going to give you a reputation of being cruel and evil."
God then likely replied: "Well, I'll deal with that, but its worth it to get rid of you once and for all. Because guess what? I'm going bring back all my favorite angels and grant them eternal life, and guess who I'm not going to be bringing back? !!"
PERFECT SOLUTION: God gets rid of Satan, the troublemaking Nazi, and shuts Satan up legally because he does so within his legal right.
So on the one hand, yes, Satan is mocking God becuase God, indeed, causes all his children to pass through the fire to prove their loyalty to him or not. But God can bring one back to life again since it is he that is giving life in the first place. Satan emphasizes the horror of the death of a chld, but ignores that life is a gift in the first place and God has the ability to give that gift whenever he wants.
So when we talk about Abraham offering up Isaac, some of the satirical cartoons and pundits of what this really was are not accurate. That is, that yes, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son and Isaac was willing to be sacrificed if God willed it, but both of them knew God could easily give them their life back again. They were willing to demonstrate they trusted God. So even if Isaac died that day and Abraham was able to prove his loyalty, they had eternal life to think about. Because if they disobeyed, they would show they were unworthy of eternal life. They both knew they would both eventually die in the normal process of things; so they were focussed on putting more value on God's promise of eternal life after this short, sometimes painful life.
Now, for Christians, God is quite consistent. We are all told we must love God more than OURSELVES and more than our parents or children. So yes, God requires us to surrender our souls in order to gain our souls back. But if we try to hold onto our souls, that is, this limited and short imperfect life, to live in opposition to God for a few temporary pleasures, then we will lose our soul, that is, our chance at eternal life.
Now at the end of the day, self sacrifice is a very high standard, but at the end of the day, it is worth it! For one, you get a world with no more Satan. Two, you get to come back and enjoy eternal life.
But, ultimately, the bottom line is, all of us are willing to die for someone we love, are we not? Dont' parents put themselves in harm's way to save a child? Don't soldiers go to war for a cause designated by their country?
So this is no different. Except some, perhaps inspired by Satan, want to characterize this as love for blood or gore on God's part rather than the true legal and moral issues involved. You know, like one cartoon posted here that suggests God was just bored and wanted to entertain himself. Well, that's not quite it, is it?
By contrast, this extreme measure was done out of LOVE for mankind and children. So when people burned their children up in the fire, it was a HORROR to Jehovah. Because he's not this bloodthirsty god of violence that Satan cuases his followers to focus on.
But I'm biased, so I won't make a moral judgment here. But I will plead the legal case which shuts Satan up. That is:
DOES THE CREATOR HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO LIMIT THE LIFESPAN OF HIS CREATURES?
Of course, that answer is: YES
The other question is was it worth it? All in heaven agree it was, if God could get rid of Satan legally and morally. Which he can and did. Some might disagree but that's the way it happened.
I'll just reflect on a recent movie which I think demonstrates Satanic thinking versus the true issue. The movie is "127 Hours." This movie was based on a true story of how a hiker up in the mountains got pinned down by a bolder which fell on his arm. He couldn't get free and finally decided, in order to save his life, he'd have to cut himself free and lose his arm! That explains precisely the situation Jehovah might see himself in. Satan was the bolder that was pinning him and the rest of creation down. So was he going to die a slow death because of that? Or was life itself too precious. Was it worth sacrificing an arm in order for the rest of the body to be free? Of course!
In fact, there are Bible verses that represent precisely that? That is, if your eye offended you, wouldn't you pluck it out to save the rest of the body and preserve life? Of course! If your hand offended you, wouldn't you cut it off? Of course. So this man pinned down by this bolder quickly came to the same conclusion. He would rather lose his hand and arm rather than lose his life and the rest of the body!
Now the difference with Satanic propaganda is he emphasizes the pain and horror of losing a hand and arm but ignores the fact that preserving that hand and arm would mean eventual death of the entire body. So its handwaving. It's like those animal rights groups that decide to spray paint women wearing luxurious fur coats but who meet first at McDonald's for a few burgers before they go out on thier animal rights campaigns. That is, they eat beef and wear leather shoes but think of how horrible it is to kill cute and cuddly animals to be used for fur coats. It's a hypocrisy (aside from the inhumane ways animals are actually killed). I mean, what's the difference between a chicken and a mink? Both make good pets, I think, right? We all want to save the baby seals while gobbling down some KFC!
Which is one other thing most people don't realize. That is, that Abraham and Isaac did go to KFC after this to cash in on a coupon for a free 3-piece meal with a drink if they got off that mountain alive. (teheehee)
I love this. PEOPLE need to get their minds in gear and think about all these things. Regardless of what you finally decide. There will always be two sides to any issue. In this case, whether God commanded Isaac to be killed because he was bored or bloodthirsty versus a legitimate symbolic reason is the issue. God did not order this because he loved killing children as Satan and some ignorants would have us to believe. So I'm good.
Good topic!
LS