Bible Matrix prophecies: 2006 (Earth, exodus, blood, Jerusalem, Israel)

[s2a]

Hello FFH,

When I said:
"Can you discern just who the "wicked men" are, or is that the exclusive domain of God Himself? Is there any prospect of "wicked men" that happen to profess themselves as Christians escaping God's wrath and judgment because they too ardently hoped for "the end" to come, when instead they should have been living out their prophet's teachings of tending to the poor, the meek, the mournful, and the peacemakers?

How many will be deemed righteous and worthy of ascension, in light of Matt. 5:17-20? Have you never labored on the Sabbath, nor lent false testimony against your neighbor? Have you not yet gouged out your eyes for lustful thoughts alone? Do you earnestly pray for those that persecute you. Have you always accepted the stroke upon one cheek, only to turn the other for another stroke?

Be careful of what you wish for... "

You replied:

Sorry I never responded to this S2A. You are absulutely right and I have not lived up to the this standard you have pointed out.

I also said:
And ya see...it's the idea of Christian's reveling and glorifying God's destruction of the "wicked" that kinda bugs me the most...

To which you offered:

You are right again, I have been a fool.

Hmmm. I am unaccustomed to such (apparently) ready contrition tendered by any [previously] staunch defender of religious dogma.

I confess my present inability to reliably discern (due to the inadequacies of this virtual realm) whether your commentary is offered in earnest sincerity, or merely as some dismissive sardonic foppery.

Understand that I retain no focused interest in directly characterizing either your piety or your personal character. Know that I deem you no fool, nor as some exceptional hypocrite. My sole interest of participation within this thread is to instigate rational question and doubt as to the [lacking] merits of Biblical "prophecies" (either "secret", "coded", or plainly accounted).

To be fair, I would characterize purposefully planned personal actions predicated upon superstition and vague prophecies to be unwise at best, and perhaps foolish (at worst) in their execution...but we are--in fact--all prone to error in both cause and unintended effect--which is a polite way of expressing that humans learn best from their own mistakes, and that being "wrong" is neither a "sin", nor even a fatal flaw of personal character.

I promote the personal perspective that reason and critical evaluation provide better "answers" to challenging questions/issues than those provided by superstition, wishful thinking, or faith-based rationales. But...I have lived long enough to realize and accept the fact that even the best applications of reason and deductive logic [at times] can still attain a flawed conclusion. But I also know that when these circumstances arise, it's typically my own failure of inadequate evaluation and hasty conclusion that remain at fault. After all, I don't have the luxury of blaming fate, demons, or Satan HImself for being wrong. When I am demonstrably (or self-evidentially) inaccurate/incorrect/illogical in my conclusions, I have no one to blame but myself--and I'm OK with that, because...that's how I learn and (eventually) improve myself.

Summary--
Know that it ain't about you--or what you believe--that concerns my own interests.
It's all about what you believe, claim, or assert as some pre-ordained inescapable fact or truth of which I therefore enjoin pointed issue and rebuttal.

Illustrating the personal hypocrisies of religious/ideological adherents is easy.
It's the purposed deconstruction of faith-based and/or inevidenced claims that presents the greater challenge (and incumbent responsibility) of presenting compellingly reasonable doubt and skepticism into invited discussion and debate, that involves/demands the most heavy lifting of salient ideas.

To reiterate:
It's not your personal faith or piety that is in question.
It's the faith-based claims that your piety promotes within like-minded adherents that remains prone to evaluative skepticism and applicable standards of reasonable doubt.

[Bishka]

S2A.

Did you not read what he wrote? No need to drag on the discussion any longer.