Demons Pretending to Be Angels and the Free Will Heresy

On Coast to Coast AM last night, George Noory had on “Doreen Virtue” which C2CAM says, “is a spiritual doctor of psychology and a fourth-generation metaphysician who works with the angelic, elemental, and ascended-master realms.” In other words, truthfully, “she communicates with demons which she has deluded herself into thinking are angels and so called ‘nature spirits'”. Doreen herself on the show acknowledged that demons can pretend to be angels and that people should not romance them for pleasure.

On the show, Doreen claimed that we must ask angels for help to get help from them, which reminded me of Mormons and other Free Will Christians, and suspected that that is why she said that, and then no surprise to me she confirmed it by saying that that was necessary or it would be a violation of our free will, however, she contradicted herself afterwards by saying that the only time they could help without our asking for it was “if it isn’t your time” (to die). It’s a contradiction because it implies that GOD’S WILL supersedes our own, and that isn’t compatible with the heretical “free will” nonsense teaching that I’ve been observing and learning about as I keep hearing the world talk about it. Basically, the world’s free will doctrine is that human free will is a sacred thing that must not be violated and that God won’t violate it (and many non-Christians believe that Earth aka Gaea and/or ‘Mother Nature’ also has a will of its/her own), yet, it’s a lie, and like so many lies, contradicts itself. Here is how it contradicts:

1) Wills are always in conflict everywhere, generally speaking, and depending on the personality of the ones who are not getting there way, it can lead to sin, crime, hateful arguing, rather than one side peacefully giving in to the other. So, to act like human’s wills can’t be violated as if it’s some physical law, is nonsense. It’s clearly observably wrong to claim our wills cannot be gone against successfully. Clearly not everyone’s will can be done as they want it to be done and there will always be unfilled will until there is perfect peace (which God says he will bring about, except in Hell). For the Free Will Christians who believe the Bible, who claim that God can’t go against our will, they are clearly wrong, since the Bible repeatedly claims God does that all the time. Some Christians try to brush that off with the ridiculous explanation that God isn’t really going against anyone’s will (how ridiculous!) when he punishes them, because they want to be punished. That is dumb, absolutely dumb. Sure, some people in bitterness say, “bring it on” or “I don’t care” but that’s because THEY DON’T KNOW THE WRATH in store for them. Like one proverb in the Bible says, “A servant cannot be corrected by mere words.” That (rebellious) servant can’t be corrected by mere talk because they aren’t feeling any pain and will especially dismiss warnings if they are feeling pleasure. It’s the same with a rebellious child or any person with a bad habit and who is having “a good time”: unless there is a painful negative consequence, emotionally or physically, they won’t stop. Further, why do so many people, when committing a crime, try to hide that they are committing a crime, or run when they think they are in danger of getting caught for that crime, or lie in court over whether they committed one or not? OBVIOUSLY, it’s because they don’t want to feel pain for what they did, not “BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE PUNISHED”. But in order to defend their backwards doctrine, that is how absurd and childish heretics must think: backwards, backwards to the point of embarrassing absurdity that even kids who aren’t brainwashed can recognize is obviously stupid and illogical reasoning that goes against what even stupid people know is stupid.

2) If God’s will is also sacred and cannot be violated, then how can everyone else’s will also be sacred and forbidden from being violated being that God’s will is often not the will of man or anything else? That is a clear contradiction. And it is obvious that if anyone’s will is going to always be done, it’s going to be the all-knowing all-powerful eternal Creator’s, not the created things that like ants compared to him. The Bible even says that God’s will is always done in Heaven, and has us pray that it will always be done on Earth, and even Jesus said to God, “…but your will (be done), not mine.” Doreen tried to dismiss the Bible and untrustworthy because, “it’s been rewritten many times,” the cliche attack of an ignoramus who doesn’t know or refuses to acknowledge that the Bible is backed up by many old copies of itself showing that it has been copied very accurately in all the places that matter most, and that there is no evidence of loss of text. Her logic is also wrong in what she implied, which was that many copies necessarily lead to errors. She also stupidly implied that God can’t preserve his own word. With such an unreliable God why does Doreen pretend to love and honor him and that he’s in control? If he can’t preserve his own word, his laws, his commands to love, then how can we? And why follow him if he can’t keep track of what he says or if we can’t? Again: contradictions. That is the lot of liars: lies and contradictions.

3) Why would there be an exception like Doreen claims, that “unless it’s “not your time” angels can’t help you”? Is it just because she said so? Because some angel supposedly told her so. And so what if one did? Can demons pretend to be angels? She herself said so, so then she cannot simply claim, “angels never lie.” And being that humans can repeatedly make the same mistakes and be deceived till death, for years, she can’t claim, especially as a religion-ignorant, which she clearly is, that she is undecievable, immune to be fooled, tricked. Further, some demons, not merely staying in one place and keeping to themselves, go out of there way to lie to humans and deceive them, and having lived for thousands of years, have mastered deception and know how humans react to all kinds of situations and suggestions. And how long has Doreen lived in comparison to such demons? She sure has not lived long enough to become a master of the truth, nor has she studied well enough as was indicated by her evil broadside attacks against Christians, like that they “blackmail” people into believing there religion and her illogical vague statement that “preaching fear” is negative energy (a meaningless statement) with the implication that that is bad. And guess what Doreen is doing by making those claims? According to her vague nonsense, she’s also “preaching fear”. It’s also a clear lie to claim as she did, that all Christians do is talk about fear. Truly she’s a lying ignoramus. Who doesn’t know that millions of Christians have said and still do, “God is love” or “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life” or “love your neighbor as yourself” or “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” or “love your enemies” and “bless those who curse you” and the most famous of all, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you,” all of which are verses from the Bible. Yet she slanders all Christians, including the children, as “preach”ers “of fear” and negativity. Clearly it’s Doreen who is the preacher of fear and negativity by mainly focusing on what she perceives are “negative” things about Christians and mainly finding fault with them, when clearly they have done much good and continue to do so (I’m talking about true Christians, but even Free Will ones do some good, though at the expense of the truth about how to get saved and to lead people away from true salvation, though not all realize they are misleading people).

4) Doreen Virtue also made clearly wrong claims, which is that angels can’t help you unless you ask for it: but as she herself would know, angels are always helping people without them asking for it, and some don’t even believe in angels when they are helped by them. Many people also don’t pray for the help of angels, but ask for God’s help, knowing that he uses angels to do things for him, yet Doreen says to pray to the angels. Why would you pray to the angels rather than God who is in control of them? If you want a coworker to be friendly to you or to help you who is in a different state, do you pray to the coworker or to God? But Doreen hates God, so refuses to go to him for help, but instead wants to worship what he created.

5) Concerning again Doreen’s claim that angels need our permission to help us, how can she say that when surely she hears stories all the time of people being helped by angels and not knowing they were angels or being helped without asking? That could be seen a deliberate deception or insanity for her to ignore what she repeatedly sees contradicts her “free will” belief, which is really about pride and a childish attitude of rebellion towards God. And if angels need our permission, then doesn’t God? Does God need our permission for anything? Obviously to say he does is stupid. That’s lying say that I need the permission of a toy I made, even a living one with a mind, to do anything to it, or that a parent needs the permission of the child to move it somewhere, teach it something, feed it something, give it a gift, love it or even talk to it (which leads to a paradox: how can you ask for permission to talk without first talking if not given permission to talk?) And if a parent doesn’t need its the permission of its children for anything but a few exceptions, how much less does God the creator and sustainer of all things need it? And consider the evil consequences of this free will logic, at least Doreen’s: Humans must ask each other for permission to help each other in all circumstances, including to save each others lives. Consider how many more people in the world would be ignorant, sad, injured and dead from such a law. But many people realize the evil of such bad logic, and have made “good Samaritan” type laws as are mentioned on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law. It’s noteworthy that Wikipedia however, doesn’t point out the origin of such laws: God’s word.

“Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.” – Colossians 2:18

“the devil took [Yeshua] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” – Matthew 4:8-10

“I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” – 2 Corinthians 11:12-14

“who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?” – Romans 9:20-21

Update: 6-16-2011

Yesterday, after having written the above (except Romans 9:20-21 which I added while adding this note), I finally realized the solution to what was a long and great mystery to me: “Is the human will and all wills “random” (because random would seem to be the result of ‘not controlled’, in other words, not a machine that is just programming or being moved around by God directly or indirectly), and is randomness necessary, and if random, how could God predict what would happen in the future correctly? And is a random will necessary for self-awareness and responsibility for the actions of the person who makes choices using their will?” God’s word had the answer all along. First of all, it makes it clear that God predestines everything (and the claim that God doesn’t predestine anyone to Hell is stupid). God doesn’t destine some things and others allow to be loose, random and free to do whatever. Second, there is no evidence that a will must be random in order for a person to be aware of themselves and that their choices and to be responsible for them.

“To humans belong the plans of the heart” – Proverbs 16:1

“A person’s steps are directed by Yahweh” – Proverbs 20:24

“In Yahweh’s hand the king’s heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him.” – Proverbs 21:1

False Teacher – Chuck Missler’s False Gospel Given On Coast to Coast AM

Chuck Missler last night was on Coast to Coast AM. He appeared to be a loving saved Christian, but then I noticed at one point where he was using Coast to Coast to preach, gave a typical Arminian gospel (which is a misleading one that leads people to Hell and makes them “twice a child of Hell as … you” to quote Jesus), which is “accept that Jesus died on a the cross for you” MINUS ASKING GOD TO FORGIVE YOU. As usual, Christian-hater and fundamentalist-hater George Noory, who hates to listen to Christian preaching, and who knows that most of his audience does too (and is successful because he twists, avoids, and marginalizes it, like Chuck Missler does), stopped his Christian guest short (Chuck) when Chuck was preach his version of the gospel. It is possible that Chuck was going to say after saying that you must accept the lord’s death, that you must also ask him for forgiveness, BUT Chuck had two hours to make that point and was not shy to take advantage of the show, and it’s a crucial part of the gospel, yet Chuck did not mention it. This is how Arminians are. Why? It’s because being that they believe that they have goodness in them, they have pride, pride that they can have eternal peace apart from God’s goodness produced by this goodness in them, so then, they believe that they don’t truly need God’s forgiveness for eternal peace or perfect peace, and they also believe in their own goodness so much, they can’t accept that God would hate anyone. They also no doubt to me believe that they don’t need God’s forgiveness, because, “God doesn’t hate anyone.” No doubt to me they also believe that God wouldn’t hate anyone, because he already took his anger out on Jesus (which if they believe, is truly twisted: because they are saying that God hated his own perfect Son, but not those who refuse to ask God to forgive them for disobeying him/being imperfect) or on the sins that Jesus suffered for (which would be nonsensical, because sins don’t feel pain, they are actions, not living, or “objects of wrath.”) They are also evil in that they can’t accept that God would even hate a person if they weren’t good. So for all those reasons, is why they stop short at “Jesus shed his blood on a cross for your sins” and some perhaps, won’t even mention that Jesus suffered, or will avoid it, because it’s “distasteful” to them or they can’t believe that God would deliberately make anyone suffer, or that Jesus needed to. Or, they may believe that Jesus volunteered to suffer, and therefore was punishing himself, not God, but because they don’t think the suffering was important, but rather the blood-shedding on a cross and for many, baptism (which many Arminians obsess on as being necessary for eternal peace). They also believe that they have a completely free will, which can’t be influenced (which is an insane belief since it goes against common sense). They believe this because they hate God and want to be his equal, which is why they call themselves “sovereign”, and so they also believe that God can’t destine anyone, avoid talking about the parts of the Bible that mention destiny, or miscontrue it as “election” (that God elects whom he will save because he saw in the future that they would do good), and hypocritically, though they acknowledge that God is sovereign, refuse to accept that God has the same “rights” they they believe he gave to them, that he can hate whom he wants to, and decide what the future of his life will be (which includes how the lives of others will be).

These teachings of theirs are contradictory, because they admit that they have disobeyed God, admit that it’s so bad in God’s eyes, admit that they must repent, and that sin angers God so much, that he punished his only begotten son, a perfect son, Jesus, who was also God, severely, and so severely that figuratively, God says that, “he became sin.” But despite that, Arminians repeatedly fail to say that we must ask God to forgive us. This explanation I have given, makes it clear that Arminians are prideful and self-righteous (and again, they admit that they are good apart from God, or can be).

And because of they refuse to acknowledge that they are evil, that they need God’s goodness done in them to be good, and Christ’s good life up to his sacrifice as an appeasement to God for our lack of a good life and none sacrifice and inability to sacrifice ourselves without it being never-ending, they refuse to accept what is logical and reject common sense, and so are prone to all kinds of other errors, and life all those who are unsaved, often make hypocritical compromises, which leads to them further contradicting their main beliefs.

Chuck also believes that all the saved Christians will be raptured into Heaven so that they don’t have to go through the tribulation, taking this verse out of context:

“in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.”

The context is made clear by Paul:

1Co 15:35 But someone will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?
1Co 15:36 Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive unless it dies.
1Co 15:37 And what you sow, you do not sow the body that is going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest).
1Co 15:38 And God gives it a body as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body.
1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh; but one kind of flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another of fish, and another of birds.
1Co 15:40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. But the glory of the heavenly is truly different, and that of the earthly different;
1Co 15:41 one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
1Co 15:42 So also the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption;
1Co 15:43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
1Co 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul,” the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit.
1Co 15:46 But not the spiritual first, but the natural; afterward the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man was out of earth, earthy; the second Man was the Lord from Heaven.
1Co 15:48 Such the earthy man, such also the earthy ones. And such the heavenly Man, such also the heavenly ones.
1Co 15:49 And according as we bore the image of the earthy man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
1Co 15:50 And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
1Co 15:51 Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed;
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.

If you can’t tell what the context is: it’s the second resurrection. The first resurrection happens when Christ returns, destroys the anti-Christ, false prophet, beast, and hundreds of millions or billions of evil people, and reigns for a thousand years. That happens AFTER the tribulation, or completes it. Here is the reference in the Bible to this first resurrection: “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.” – Revelation 20:6.

Chuck was also being a hypocrite when George Noory told him that he was concerned that Harold Camping’s false prophecies (or predictions or interpretations of the Bible about when the end of the world would be) would lead some to suicide, and Chuck said he was concerned that it would lead some to disbelieve the Bible and that atheists would use it to blaspheme God. Yet Chuck is doing little different by also giving a false timing for the rapture. What will all those Christians who go through the tribulation think, and how will they feel, without that stable goodness of God in them, when the anti-Christ bludgeons them and persecutes them, and Jesus doesn’t come to take them out of their worry or doesn’t affirm that their complacency is a good thing? Will the majority of them think, “Oh no, the Calvinists were right” or “The Baptists and Presbyterians were right?” No: they will “fall away” and “betray one another” and some or many will rationalize taking on the mark of the Beast because they can’t believe that God will have left them behind, and that as many of them believe I’m sure, the mark is really “a computer chip that is implanted into you”, and some will probably realize they were wrong, and out of greater hatred for God for not giving them there way, will take the mark in an attempt to harm God through such provocation. Some will probably disbelieve the Bible and commit suicide, seeing how bad the world gets or because of the severe persecution, and not having God in them to help to “not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.” (Matthew 10:28)

The Arminian’s Confusion Over The Will and Man’s Sovereignty

Many Christians and pseudo-Christians, like Mormons, are Arminians, or have Arminian-like beliefs. The Mormons no doubt have them because their founder, the narcissist sociopath Joseph Smith, knew of a major split between various Christians, that which was between those who believed in predestiny and those who believed that man was in control of his future and Joseph also believed that the U.S. Constitution, was divinely inspired, though it was really a creation of deists, perhaps influenced by what they learned from some Indian/Native American tradition or laws. The U.S. Constitution that mankind had “inalienable rights”. Inalienable means “Incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another” and repudiated in part, means, “reject as untrue”. And “right” in that context, means, “An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition, nature or God.” And the Deists believed that mankind had the right to liberty and to pursue a life of happiness. The Bible does teach that you have the option to attempt to have liberty, which means, “freedom from servitude, confinement or oppression” and to try to be happy, and that it is natural to be happy over certain things, but it doesn’t teach that liberty and happiness itself are something you will have in life, though it seems that most people get to experience being happy at least one time in their life, the exception being maybe babies that are born severely deformed or incomplete, or people who are always in severe physical pain. A confused person, like a narcissist might think that liberty and happiness was guaranteed to him by God and also a person who resents God’s authority and control over them, and so it shouldn’t be a surprise such people would obsess over their “rights”, and even turn them into major religious teachings like Arminus (the founder of Arminiasm) and Joseph Smith did. Joseph Smith’s cult has their own fancy phrase for the will, calling it “free agency” in an attempt to make themselves sound wise and to distinguish themselves from other cults and the Christians (and which is a term that leads to further confusion). Joseph Smith even made his own attempted replacement or out-doing of the Bible, called “The Book of Mormon”, and stupidly included the words “rights” and “liberty”, repeatedly, and ended up sounding like a poor imitator of various speeches made by the “founding fathers”. The Book of Mormon ended up being littered with punctuation and grammar errors and major plagiarism from the Bible that he attempted to out-do. Joseph Smith also tried copying it’s literary style, and failed often due to his ignorance of Old English grammar. He even copied the italics in the King James Bible into the Book of Mormon, making it even more obvious that he wasn’t divinely inspired, but a forgetful and lazy idiot, and whose fatigue (caused by his making his long rambling work while sinning and desiring to sin), hindered him. And so again was fulfilled these verses: “Let God be true and every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4) and “For the wisdom of this world is nonsense in God’s sight. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise with their own trickery’.”

As I’ve taught before, there is no conflict between “free will” and God destining everything he made. The confusion is over what “will” means and what it is, something which opinionators and God-haters keep misdefining. A will doesn’t mean “a thing which is free and makes choices freely without influence”, which is where the illogical term “free will” comes from. And if the will is free, then “free will” is a redundant phrase. But the will is a part of the human mind that makes choices, but choices which are influenced, and choices which aren’t always able to be fulfilled, and choices which God does not have to respect or love, if they are against what he says is good. And God can influence people perfectly, and doesn’t need to do so directly in all instances, for him to cause to happen what he wants to. He can get what he wants indirectly, in various ways. He designed the universe and gave it the direction he wanted, knowing what would happen, and what would happen when he permitted things and commanded things and directly intervened. So, he has pre-destined everything, and there is no getting around that. No scheme will change that, and no teaching will make it less true; God is sovereign, and his will never fails, and we are under his influence, in this universe, which belongs to him, not us.

Update: 5/20/2011, 11:20

George Noory has yet another Christian on named Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh, who is also teaching the rapture is a non-judgment day event, who at 8:44 AM I just learned was most likely saved (I’ve been talking to her). She taught that the rapture happens after the tribulation as far as I can remember from the show, but I’m not sure. I’m trying to find out now.

Additional Information:

The Last Days Explained

Arminian and Universalist Christians Refuted׃ The Limited Love Arminians

I was studying Arminianism again, and found two websites which, big surprise, made claims without evidence.

The first one:

“As informed by St. Augustine, this view espouses the notion that God, out of love, has sovereignly chosen to save a few (the elect) and has, in like manner, not chosen (not elected) the many. We have trouble with this, since it limits God’s love.”

My reply:

1) And whatever you a mere man or others have trouble with means God is wrong? How are people blind to such arrogant, childish, criminal reasoning? “Mom, dad you’re not doing what I want, this troubles me, therefore… ur bad.” I don’t think so.

2) It’s Arminians and Universalists who limit the greatness of God’s love to their personal feelings of what great love is:

How is God’s love “limited”? Do you mean, “it’s not great” or literally it must apply to everything? If you mean it’s not great, aren’t you blaspheming? For if God’s Son had only sacrificed his son for one person, who in the Hell are criminals to say “that’s not great,” you’ve love is limited, let alone, “you trouble me God”? Who are you to condemn God for his will for not fulfilling your desires? But does the Bible say Jesus only died for one? No, it implies millions, and yet you cheapen every one of those he suffered and died for, as if it were some easy thing that you could do. Talk about disgusting arrogance! On top of that, does he say that he will only love those he died for? NO! IT TEACHES HE WILL KEEP THEIR CHILDREN AS WELL, AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF EVER MULTIPLYING CHILDREN! SO YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS SAYING “LIMITED”!

3) Were you are so simpleminded, so childish in logic, that you literally meant that God should love everything? Do I even need to point out how such a claim contradicts itself? Focus: “everything”? “Every, single, thing”? If you can’t figure out why that is an evil thing to say, you need to pray for wisdom with humility, not false humility, without bias.

4) God has trouble with your blaspheming.

Then I came to another website and read some screed (yes I picked up that word off that bitter atheist I mentioned some posts ago, but it fits so well for what I read, part of which I quote here):

“It is not our intention to go into a detailed complicated theological analysis of each point in each belief system, but only to highlight and summarise the core differences between them.”

But then the fools near the end of their screed say,

“The God of Calvinism sacrificed his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for his Elect only, and he predestined only his Elect to be saved. This must also mean that he predestined, knowingly and willingly, to cast the vast majority of humanity (the non-Elect) into hell to be tortured forever. This makes the God of Calvinism an evil god, infinitely and unimaginably more evil than Hitler could ever be.”

My reply:

1) Let me guess why you Royal “It is not our intent” Jeeve’s Bring Me More Wine Snobs didn’t get into analyzing each point, not even with a single sentence… because you’re confused, blind, ignorant morons who know Calvinist doctrine refutes whatever argument you can come up with; because you know many verses in Scripture contradict your bitter lies. What verses teaches God goes along with man’s will over his own, anywhere? But plenty can be shown that it’s just the opposite, and I’m not repeating for your lazy selves since they are easily found.

2) Where’s the evidence that God is evil to predestine? NONE. Therefore you’re blaspheming, and of all things to blaspheme over: God’s character and will; could you be anymore evil than that? Talk about “hypocrisy” and “blasphemers”.

3) Doesn’t the Bible say that we should suffer for doing evil if it is God’s will? How is that not a big enough hint that God is right now matter what he does?

4) How Arminians and Universalists, do you reason, God is evil if he predestines people to Hell because, WELL JUST CUZ! CUZ IT’S “MEAN”, but not for making even a single being he knew would sin and end up in pain? Contradict yourselves much? Ignore verses that refute you much?

5) “Mean” and “evil” and “cruel” to who? Who gave you narcissists and you arrogant babblers the right to speak for millions of ever multiplying Calvinists? Did we say God is cruel or evil? So what business do you have declaring for all, speaking for all of us you claim are evil on top of it, as to what we think of God, how we feel about him, you arrogant snobs? Talk about “arrogant” and “vain”! GOD, IS, GOOD, GOD, IS, LOVE. Stop calling him evil and a cosmic rapist.

6) Why did you leave out that Jesus of his own free will and out of love, volunteered to be sacrificed Mr’s and Ms’ We Have Free Will and Unlimited Love But God’s Is Limited? Did you forget that extremely unfathomably great act of love? You didn’t think it was worth mentioning? What a strange thing to not mention in your summary of the different types of Christians for people who without their mouths put love and freedom on a pedestal above God.

7) If God predestines “the elect” to be saved, is he evil for going against their will to be saved? According to your demonic logic he is.

8) If God doesn’t go against anyone’s will, you must not believe “predestine” when you read it. You’re truly deluded.

9) Where does God mention “second fruits”? If the elect are both the first and the second (in contrast to Christ being a kind of firstfruit according to God), then where is this “second/third” you imply exists? Where’s your verses to show for it? None: you just babble in vain pretending you’re right.

10) ” to cast the vast majority of humanity”: LIE. Did you notice any verses in Scripture that say that the elect will have kids to no end?

11) ” to cast the vast majority of humanity” as opposed to what, ONE PERSON? So if God sends one person or a small amount of people to Hell, theeeeeen it’s okay if he predestines to torture forever? And why bother saying “elect” when you’re problem is with sending most people to Hell, and not “electing”? Or is “electing” an evil bug to you too?

Your, “Our will is ours! You can’t touch it God!” belief and teaching = life-destroying pride. You false Christians pretend to love God, and their arguments are pretentious, hypocritical, confusion that makes God the author of confusion and lies.

Related Post:
A “Calvinist” Message to Arminians׃ “Eternal” means “ETERNAL”

Fox News-Supporting-Arminians, Caught Supporting Terrorist Muslims, Again

Post link: http://blindfoxes.tk

It’s amazing to true Christians (Calvinists) how these false Christians (Arminians) are repeatedly exposed as massive hypocrites. The conspiracy of a terrorist having partial control of Fox News has become big news, and liberals are jumping on it (including the Arminians among them) and even has the Christian-hating radio show host Jim Villanuci finally admitting that his previous view that “rich people” can be greedy (noooo: really Agnostic Jim?) and hateful (no way! People with an extremely large amount of money and holding onto it and making more: HATEFUL? NO WAY!). Jim (and Jon Stewart) and no doubt others are amazing over the irony of a terror funder who owns 7% of Fox News (2.3 billion U.S. Dollars worth of stock in Fox News), being made known as a bad guy on Fox News while making money over the bad publicity, and having yet more money to put into the Muslim venture to place a Muslim Community Center two blocks away from Ground Zero. Though Fox News is outing him as a bad guy, they aren’t admitting that he owns a large part of Fox News itself. There is even a photo of Rupert Murdoch, who is in charge of Fox News, shaking hands with funder of terrorist Muslims and their jihads. Though there is laughter, an even greater twist, but nothing new or surprising, and which I hinted at a little, is the majority of Christians are Arminians, and the the conservative ones fund Fox News and the liberal ones fund liberal news providers like Jon Stewert and CNN and so on. So you have two groups of Arminians, one trying to vilify the other, both thinking they are the true church, that they are the only ones going to Heaven, both outing each others’ hypocrisy, and not realizing they are really both a single group of hypocrites who are both funding evil, repeatedly forgetting the root of their problem, which is that they hate God despite their pretending to love God. But anyways, here is the “gnat” they are straining at while swallowing a camel:

The Fox News connection to Ground Zero mosque
Hundreds of thousands for project’s imam come from high-profile network investor
by Worldnet Daily
9/23/2010/9:11 PM Eastern Time

The Saudi prince whose post-9/11 relief check was rejected by former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani has found a more willing recipient in the city for his millions: the head of the Ground Zero mosque project.

The same Saudi potentate, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, owns the biggest chunk of the parent company of the Fox News Channel outside of the Murdoch family.

Former Bush advisers have similar ties to the prince and the proposed mega-mosque in Manhattan, which may explain why they’ve asked Republicans to soften their opposition to it.

WND has learned that one of the original board members of the nonprofit group promoting the 13-story mosque and “cultural center” took the job as a favor to James A. Baker III, the former President George H.W. Bush official and lawyer who defended Saudi government officials against a lawsuit filed by families of 9/11 victims. Baker has counted bin Talal as a client.

The dots are finally being connected! Find out what Islam has planned for you: Get “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

Bin Talal has pumped more than $300,000 into the project headed by New York imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as part of the prince’s campaign to “improve the image of Islam in the American public.” The prince’s charitable foundation in 2008 gave $125,000 to Rauf, which came on the heels of an earlier $180,000 gift, according to the Arab press.

The foundation is run by Muna AbuSulayman, a Saudi woman who appears on Rauf’s website as one of its “Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow.”

Additionally, the prince funded “through a generous grant” the reprinting of Rauf’s 2004 book, originally titled “A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11.”

The amount of the grant is undisclosed. Attempts to reach bin Talal’s Saudi-based foundation were unsuccessful.

Guiliani refused to accept bin Talal’s $10 million donation after bin Talal blamed U.S. policy in the Middle East for the 9/11 attacks and suggested the U.S. take a position more favorable to the “Palestinian cause.”

Critics called his offer “blood money” and praised Guiliani for rebuffing it.

After Giuliani’s snub, bin Talal took a more indirect strategy to influence American policy.

In a 2002 interview in the Arab press, bin Talal intimated that “Arabs should focus more on penetrating U.S. public opinion as a means to influencing decision-making” on the war on terror and U.S. foreign policy.

Bin Talal proceeded to give more than $500,000 to the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington. The prince currently is helping CAIR finance a $50 million campaign to fight “Islamophobia” in America. According to a sensitive State Department cable, top CAIR officials in 2006 traveled to Saudi Arabia to solicit bin Talal and other wealthy Saudis for campaign funds.

“We are planning to meet Prince Alwaleed bin Talal for his financial support to our project,” CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad told the Arab press at the time. “He has been generous in the past.”

In addition, the Saudi-based Organization of the Islamic Conference has kicked in more than $300,000 for CAIR’s propaganda effort, according to the book “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” which exposes CAIR and other fronts for the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America.

CAIR last week held a press conference at the National Press Club to support the construction of the mosque near Ground Zero. It also denounced critics as “Islamophobes.” CAIR occupies a suite next door to Rauf’s Manhattan offices, and Rauf has honored CAIR’s New York chapter spokesman as one of his “Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow.”

The Justice Department says CAIR is a terrorist front group for Hamas and its parent the Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR in 2007 was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme to funnel millions of dollars to Hamas suicide bombers and their families, prompting the FBI to cut off all outreach to the group.

The group in the past has insisted it receives no foreign support but now acknowledges taking it least overseas money from bin Talal, whose operations are based in Saudi Arabia. However, CAIR argues it shouldn’t be held to a higher standard than Fox.

“News Corp. is headed by Rupert Murdoch and is the parent company of Fox News Channel,” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said. “If CAIR is taken to task for bin Talal’s donation to us, so should these companies be taken to task for accepting his money.”

Through his Kingdom Holding Co., bin Talal owns at least a 7 percent, $2.3 billion stake in Fox’s parent company News Corp. His website lists News Corp. as a “core” holding.

“KHC [Kingdom Holding Co.] intends to continue to leverage its relationship with New Corp.’s mangement to identify new investment opportunities,” the website says.

Indeed, bin Talal last month launched a new Arabic TV news channel in partnership with the Fox network. The 24-hour broadcast channel will compete with Al-Jazeera. Earlier this year, News Corp. agreed to buy a 9.1 percent stake in bin Talal’s Rotana Media group for $70 million. Rotana hosts Fox channels in Saudi Arabia.

Critics call bin Talal an “agent of Saudi influence” who has even marshaled direct influence over editorial content at Fox. He once boasted of persuading producers to change a screen banner under video footage of Muslims rioting in France to remove its Islamic reference.

“I picked up the phone and called [New Corp. chief Rupert] Murdoch,” bin Talal said. “Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from ‘Muslim riots’ to ‘civil riots.'”

Fox does not deny his account.

Leading Fox News opinion hosts, however, have been editorializing against the Ground Zero mosque plan. Bill O’Reilly has called for it to be built elsewhere, and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have spoken against it. Yesterday, the three hosts of “Fox and Friends” – Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade – agreed it should not be built nearthe World Trade Center site.

News Corp. also owns the Wall Street Journal. Insiders say two of the newspaper’s top investigative reporters covering terrorism left after Murdoch scaled back their beats. Glenn Simpson and Susan Schmidt, both award-winning journalists, had broken major stories on Saudi funding of terrorism.

Bin Talal, News Corp.’s second-largest shareholder outside the Murdoch clan, has described his relationship with Murdoch’s son and heir-apparent James Murdoch as “very close.”

“If he (Rupert) doesn’t appoint him, I’ll be the first one to nominate him to be the successor of Mr. Rupert Murdoch, God forbid if something happens to him,” bin Talal told Charlie Rose in a recent TV interview.

The Aspen connection

After 9/11, Rauf co-founded the Cordoba Initiative with former Aspen, Colo., Mayor John S. Bennett, which explains why Cordoba’s tax filings list an Aspen address.

During his four terms as mayor, Bennett was introduced to bin Talal and other Saudi royals, who own chalets and other properties in Aspen (Bennett’s own home is valued at more than $2 million). Bin Talal met his second wife in Aspen.

Before taking over Cordoba as executive director, Bennett headed the Aspen Institute, which included among its board members former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan, as well as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice has appeared with Rauf at events in Washington and overseas.

Aspen Institute recently launched the Middle East Leadership Initiative with “generous support” from Saudi Arabia. AbuSulayman, bin Talal’s aide, is an AspenInstitute Middle East fellow.

Cordoba’s tax filings show that Julia A. Jitkoff of Kingsville, Texas, was a director before resigning in 2007. Sources say the Texas socialite was sponsored by “longtime friend” Jim Baker, who sits on the board of her family’s King Ranch holding company.

FEC records show Jitkoff and her family gave over $30,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaigns. Cordoba’s 2008 IRS statement shows its books are kept by Kay Zimm of Kingsville.

According to bin Talal’s biography, he and Baker met regularly in Houston to discuss business in the 1990s, when bin Talal was a Carlyle Group client of Baker. Joining them for business lunches at the Bayou Club was former President George H.W. Bush, a senior Carlyle adviser at the time.

Baker’s Houston law firm, Baker & Botts, which defended Saudi officials against the 9/11 lawsuit, is one of the top international firms specializing in Shariah-compliant finance – another hobbyhorse of bin Talal.

Bin Talal in 2007 donated $250,000 to the James Baker III Institute at Rice University.

Bennett is also close to the Bush family. He graduated from both Yale University and Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass. In 2002, bin Talal donated $500,000 to help fund the George Herbert Walker Bush Scholarship at Phillips Academy.

The Cordoba documentary

The Cordoba Initiative is promoting the Ground Zero mosque. According to its tax filing, its mission statement, among other things, is to “address the root causes of international terrorism.”

Cordoba was the center of the Islamic caliphate in Spain, and the Cordoba mosque was built over the cathedral there.

Rauf has also worked on a documentary film – “Out of Cordoba” – by New York director Jacob Bender, a peace activist and Islamic apologist. The 2008 film, for which Rauf is listed as an adviser, purports to document how Islam led Europe out of the Dark Ages.

“Cordoba was the most advanced city on the European continent,” Bender says.

He also claims it was the most tolerant, allowing Christianity and Judaism to “coexist” with Islam.

Bender said he made the film to respond to “growing evidence of Islamophobia and attacks upon Muslims,” adding that “negative stereotypes about the Muslim are the result of ignorance.”

“American society has always been quite isolated, not wanting to know about the rest of the world. Secondly, American popular cultures always needed an enemy to confront,” he said. “First it was the native Americans, [then] Germans in World War I, and later the communists.”

Then came 9/11 and the war on terror. “In recent years people in the United States looked to justify the huge military budget by finding a new enemy in the Arab and Muslim world,” Bender continued. “The 9/11 and al-Qaida presented them with an opportunity to say that Islam is an enemy of the West.”

Muslim leaders around the world have given the film rave reviews.

“The film will contribute to solving the problem of misunderstanding between the Islamic world and the West,” gushed OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who has proposed with CAIR an international law criminalizing blasphemy of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

Listed first among “major funders” backing the film: Alwaleed bin Talal Foundation.

Another backer is the Islamic Society of North America, which bin Talal also finances. The uncle of Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan, serves on ISNA’s board. The U.S. government recently named ISNA an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history.

An ISNA affiliate – the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences – changed its name after federal agents raided its offices after 9/11 on suspicion of supporting terrorism. Northern Virginia-based GSISS is now known as Cordoba University.

————–

And though these conservative Arminians have been found supporting terrorist Muslims (again, it’s already been known for more than a year that Saudi royalty owned some of Fox News), it’s also known that there are liberal Arminians who support Muslim terrorists by pandering to their religion. So the conspiracy and “layer(s) of ignorance” these Arminians are accusing each other of and amazing over, is much deeper than what both groups realize. Just like the Bible said, these are he last days, and it will be a terrible time, worse than any in all history. The good thing of course, is that it will get better, and one day become perfect, for those who love God.

”23 Minutes In Hell” and George Noory’s Confused ”state of mind”

Last night, George Noory had on a guest, Bill Wiese, obviously a Christian, who gave his account of being in Hell. At first George said it was a near death experience, but he was later corrected. Odd that being that he had his own OBE (out of body experience) that he’d mess up the details, especially on a rare incident like seeing Hell. George, who prides himself on keeping his opinion out of the stories he gets, wrecked this story by, guess what, injecting his opinion to try and refute this Christian, who was obviously the fundamentalist type, but the good kind, not the “be good by obeying God and not rejecting your forgiveness to get to Heaven” type. Unfortunately, sadly, Bill didn’t push back much when George rudely tried to refute him: George gave his usual Universalist Christian cliche, “I know a lot of people who don’t believe in God, I have on psychics who don’t do anything wrong, they don’t murder anyone. I think Hell is just a state of mind” reply which he gives when he hears, “If you don’t believe in God you’re going to Hell.” When George, or anyone says that, he’s saying it without evidence, and playing God over right and wrong. In list form, this is what he is doing wrong when he says such a thing:

1) He’s contradicting the commandments, which Jesus also repeated as valid, as did every Christian in the Bible. No one said (as sick Christians do), “Oh that’s legalistic to try and obey God to the letter” or “perfectly”. None said, “Just believe what you want” or “your religion is personal” or “God won’t punish reasonable people” or “right and wrong is whatever George Noory or I say it is.” For George to say that a person is “good”, besides being absurd, since there are hardly even any good true Christians, is also absurd because he’s pretending, obviously pretending, to know the hearts and to have seen the lifetime of deeds of the guests he has on. Can he really know what is going on in over a thousand peoples’ lives, even enough to say they’ve never murdered anyone? Has he been watching them every hour of their life? At best you can really “know” about twenty people after having lived or worked with them for a few years.

2) George is contradicting his claim that he doesn’t give his opinion, which he says he doesn’t do because the audience doesn’t want to hear him, but what the guests have to contribute, but he, a false Catholic (or an example of a typical Catholic, hypocritical), when he hears the truth about God preached, gets triggered.

3) George is contradicting his teaching that right and wrong is just whatever you believe it to be. Right and wrong isn’t relative, if it were George wouldn’t get triggered hearing what’s right.

4) It’s also a contradiction for George to imply or say that murderers and Christians can’t affect anything with their beliefs, since his passive aggressive replies shows he does believe that what they believe can affect reality.

5) By itself, it makes no point to say that “Hell is a state of mind.” If George’s point was simply that Hell was a state of mind, then how does that change that people who will be in extreme torment? It’s just as pointless as saying, “I think Heaven is a state of mind.” And? But they are not, and there is no evidence to show Earth or this universe is a state of mind either.

Hell is described the Bible as a place, just as it describes Heaven as a place and other locations. If He’ll is a state of mind the why not hot or cold, bad tastes or smells, a beautiful jewel or a broken jewel, a shattered mirror or broken bottle, an arm cut off or blindness, angels?

5) Illogical bias: Notice the state of mind defense only pops up in response to a painful idea like eternal punishment usually? When someone says animals go to Heaven, who suddenly says, “state of mind”? No one.

6) Hypocrisy: George has, with bitterness in his voice, stated that he would not forgive someone who murdered a family member. He said this after a guest caller made a silly rant about how he had been taught from some spiritual beings or being, that his murdered family member wanted to be murdered (and so everything was okay) and so he forgave the murderer when he found himself next to him. If George isn’t willing to forgive murderers, why should God? Why shouldn’t God send them to Hell forever if George doesn’t believe they shouldn’t be forgiven? Further, the world figuratively speaking, murdered Jesus, and that was God’s family member, as were, indirectly, the millions of Christians who were killed for being Christ-followers. If God were to not forgive those who murdered or who greatly contributed to those murderers, then more than the number of those who killed Jesus and millions of Christians would be permanently unforgiven, and that may be, but the point is, then why would George feel repelled by the thought of many millions of murderers being in Hell?

7) Another contradiction, in a way, if George meant by, “Hell is just a sate of mind and therefore just change your outlook on life” is denying that murderers should be punished, because God wouldn’t send anyone to a prison, which is basically, is what Hell is. So why would Hell only exist for a murderer and not the accomplice or someone who mislead others about the Bible and so helped caused them to end up in Hell or make it worse for them?

George’s attempt to make it seem like God isn’t harsh/hard/strict/wouldn’t forgive by trying to do away with sending the criminals to prison, and just making it a “state of mind” reminds me of a line from a Pentecostal pastor called Pastor Galen Woodward in Albuquerque, NM, which was that God didn’t design Hell for humans, but for Satan and demons. And? It has no point. When I asked Galen how God knew the entire future if God didn’t plan out peoples’ lives, he literally told me he didn’t believe God knew the whole future. This is the same guy who tried to brush off a complaint I made to him by saying that if it had no signature it is Satanic.

7) Another contradiction is that if reality is just a state of mind, as George implied by his Hell statement and his teaching or implying that reality can be affected by intent, is that murder doesn’t have to be considered murder, but like his ranting guest caller who said that his family member wanted to be murdered, a murderer can simply be a person doing a good deed or helping out by fulfilling a request, among other things, including just being an angel in disguise giving the gift of a peaceful death, even if it was by torturing a person to death.

This “reality is whatever I believe it to be and whatever everyone but fundamentalist Christians or Calvinist Christians want it to be” is clearly a hypocritical and nonsensical teaching. Not surprising to me, on the same show, George had on the narcissist (that includes elitist) scientist David Sereda, who was encouraging everyone to intend the oil spill to go away, and talked about supposed evidence from some prestigious university from some prestigious top physicist that your intentions and “karma” could, he implied, affect in a “positive” way, whatever you wanted to be fixed. He didn’t say positive, but that is what he implied. I point that out because he didn’t give any evidence that you could harm something or make water impure by intending it and doing a “good deed”. His mentioning of karma and “meditating” (on intending things to change, like for the oil spill to go away) by the way, is further of evidence of my belief that he is a Buddhist, though I’ve never heard him say or write that he was. And now that I write that, that’s just more evidence that Buddhists are also confused as to what is real or not (and big surprise since they, or many of them at least, believe that nothing exists, and is just an “illusion”). And now that I write about that, doesn’t that sound like what George was teaching: that reality is just an illusion? The illusion, for many millions, if not billions, sadly, is that George and his fellow host Ian Punnet, and their many psychopathic guests, are good teachers of the truth.

7-15-2010: Yesterday night George was asked if he was religious, or someone said, “I don’t know if you’re religious” and George gave this cliche response, “I’m spiritual”, which besides showing him to be a false Catholic, or not one at all, and just a supporter, shows his ignorance of what “spiritual” means. It simply means, “Having to do with that which is spiritual”.

7-18-2010: On the absurd Time Travelers show George Noory hosted, I think yesterday night, George misquoted Bill Wiese, and asked his rambling deluded guest who never stops talking, Dr. Bruce Goldberg, if a guest he had on who had seen Hell (Bill?) was right to say that (with a sarcastic voice) “if you believe in very religious things, you’re going to Hell”. But that isn’t what Bill said, and shows more how childish and nonsensical Noory is. And what is the difference between a religious and very religious thing? Bill Wiese basically said that Christ must be accepted as God’s (only begotten) son and that you must accept him as your saviour (from your sins, as in you must ask God to forgive you for them and trust Jesus suffered the punishment you deserved for them: the shedding of his blood, hanging on a tree, and physical death, and suffering an eternity of pain for all your sins, not just some or certain ones, in a prison called “Hell”). Dr. Goldberg gave a disgusting cliche response, which was something about how scare tactics like that are used when their power is threatened. WHAT POWER? Calvinists have great control over the world? I wish. And like Noory and Goldberg have no power or money interest, no customers? On top of that Goldberg is a hypnotist, taking advantage over weak-willed people and who commands people what to do without them resisting him. What hypocrite he is, taking the Bible out of context to make it appear to be a mere threat, and making an arbitrary attack like that. God’s power is not threatened by ranting morons who believe that time travelers exist and are whoever they feel them to be, and who say that they know what dogs see when they die and believe any fanciful story as long as it doesn’t threaten their beliefs. According to Dr. Bruce Goldberg then, every threat of punishment is about a fear of loss of control or power, it’s never about keeping peace or trying to give or restore peace in any way, and there should be no threat punishment to the breaking of any law nor a fear of being punished for breaking any laws, including abusing children, robbing the poor and needy, discriminating against strangers and murdering the innocent; did you expect the opposite belief from a “doctor” who believes that it’s okay to control the will of another person and to take advantage of them for fun and profit?

A few minutes later yet another caller praised George for not being confrontational to his guests. Awful.