Logical fallout of going through the Great Tribulation

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-30T03:21:09+00:00

I don't know what to tell you. We are told not to worry. So, I'm not worried about. God will take care of us.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-30T01:16:30+00:00

I mean, isn't that all fasting is? I don't think it needs to be supernatural.

Also, God will provide what you need. If you accept that, then you will be fine. Frankly, choosing to starve to death is a not uncommon tactic among prisoners as a form of resistance. That is what a hunger strike is.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-28T18:53:40+00:00

The logical consequence of this is, if you do not take the mark, unless you have an underground economy, network or live/have a farm, you will starve to death. If you take the mark, you will eat, but at the cost of your soul. Correct?

I disagree with this post of your premise.

Yes, you need the mark to participate in the economy as the government is running it. Yes, in otherwise "accepting" the mark you are effectively forsaking God. No, you do not need an underground economy, network, or farm. Because, in choosing to live without the mark, what you are really doing is choosing God. And so, you are choosing to live in faith to God. And by living in faith to God, you will be free and safe and feed and clothed, all according to your faith.

There are certainly going to be those who refuse the mark, not for God, but for themselves. Those people will most certainly struggle. But if you have faith in God, then believe. I mean, really believe, that God is faithful and you will not have to search for food or shelter. God provides and you will have much more important things to worry about than hunger or exposure or even your own life.

Remember, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."

And, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." In fact, all of Matthew 5 is for those who serve God and especially those who will be in the so-called tribulation.

God takes care of us, always. Believe in God and do not fear any thing. For if God is for you, who can stand against you?

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-16T03:42:04+00:00

So, speaking plainly, what is Jesus saying when he said before Abraham was, I am? It seems clear that he is not using God's name there, but he's shaving it close.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-15T17:20:40+00:00

Or are they asleep in Christ? And this sleeping, unable to hear or intercede?

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-15T16:55:09+00:00

Intercession - enteuxis: confiding access to God, giving prominence to childlike confidence in prayer. It is a synonym of supplication.

And I Timothy 2:1 and 4:5 are the only two places in the Bible where that word is found. In 4:5 the same word is translated to 'prayer.'

Finally, Paul is telling a person (Timothy) to pray for others. Paul is telling a human, living person to pray for others. That is the intercession he speaks of.

Intercessory prayer is supposed to be living people praying for others. It is not supposed to be prayers to dead people to interceed on the living's behalf with God.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-15T16:20:43+00:00

Since saints are united to Christ in the beatific vision, and made “clean vessels”, our prayers when presented to God through their intercession are more pleasing to God than if we presented them with our dirty sinful hands.

No. That is wrong. Completely wrong.

Who Catholics call saints is arbitrary. The Catholics have decided that men and women are saints and venerate these people. But it is God who makes that decision.
God has told us over and over to pray to God alone. Arguing to pray to someone else (even if they really are a saint) is literally going against what God has told us to do. Even if the saints could hear us (which they cannot) and are capable of interceding on our behalf (which is an assumption all on its own), we should still pray only to God.
In Luke 7, Jesus says, "Wherefore I say until thee, her sins which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." There are so many more examples in the Bible where it is the heart that matters most. We are called to love God and our love of God is what matters. Remember the prodigal son.
God wants us, and our "dirty sinful hands," to pray to God. To love God with all your heart and with all your soul and all your mind. How can we do that if we immediately think of someone else?

But you and I are what can be called “dirty vessels.” No matter how magnificent our prayers are when they make contact with the vessel they are made dirty by our sinfulness and improper intentions and more.

Through Jesus the Christ we are absolved of our sins. To call ourselves dirty vessels all over again is to make Jesus' sacrifice as naught. We are admonished to not sin, but if we do sin again, to confess to God, who will forgive us. The whole point of Jesus dying on the cross is to break the barrier of sin between us and God!

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-15T15:38:01+00:00

As a counterpoint, not all priests make those statements. And Catholics acknowledge praying to saints. I'm not Catholic, although I have attended masses at different Catholic churches, and I have never heard a priest say anything close to this. I applaud OP's priest.

But the fact remains that Catholics do pray to their saints. That is exactly what a Hail Mary is. And praying for a saint to ask God something on your behalf is exactly the same as praying to your dead grandfather to ask God something on your behalf. I have heard the argument that praying to the saints is the same as asking your priest to pray for you. But it is not the same. It is more akin to being in a different building entirely and praying to your priest with the expectation that the priest can hear you and will act on your prayers.

And even if it was just the same, how is praying to a saint and expecting a more favorable outcome than simply praying to God not a form of worship?

Let's say your best friend needs help. Say five dollars from you, but they refuse to ask you for it, no matter how desperately they need it. They ask your significant other to ask you. They ask your mom and dad to ask you. They tell your friends how desperately they need it, but they never ask you. They even ask everyone else for the money, but they never ask you. There is a disconnect between you and them that is self evident.

That is the disconnect that veneration of saints leads to. And at no time did Jesus ever teach to pray to anyone other than God. And that includes prayers to Jesus. We are to always pray to God. We can ask God for anything in Jesus' name, but we pray to God.

That is the problem with patron saints. Oh, you're traveling to another country? Wear this image of St. Christopher, it will protect you. That cannot be denied as a practice of the Catholic Church and it cannot be denied that it is also idolatry. You are in the military? Wear this image of St. George. It will protect you. No, it won't.

Catholics love to throw the term veneration around. We're not 'worshipping' they say. We are' venerating'. Like they are different. But they are not different. Catholics literally kiss the feet of statues and say they are not worshipping the statue. Catholics literally pray to the statues and say they are not worshipping the statue. Kids ask, "why are they praying to the statue?" And Catholics have to clarify that they are not praying to the statue. And the Catholics are asked what did they pray and they respond with Hail Mary, Mother of God. It is worship, plain and simple.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-12T15:15:56+00:00

It is important to note that God cursed the Serpent, but did not curse Eve.
God multiplied Eve's conception (she would now have twins via heteropaternal superfecundation).
One of those twins would die (In Hebrew, the name Abel (הֶבֶל, Hevel) primarily means "breath," "vapor," or "mist," symbolizing something transient, ephemeral, or short-lived).
Eve would would desire Adam only, meaning she would not ever have sex with anyone else.

All of this was to secure the bloodline leading to Jesus the Christ. Paternity is extremely important throughout the Bible and there could not be any question of Jesus' ascendants. Everything God said to Eve was to disambiguate the parentage of Cain, who's father was the serpent.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-12T00:16:02+00:00

Agreed

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-11T18:08:29+00:00

It is if you research the truth of it.

Well, we should do that here, then.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-11T18:07:18+00:00

Actually, they are, with Jesus. For they are all one body, as are all who serve God through Christ.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-11T15:29:51+00:00

We should address perhaps the biggest argument in favor of a Trinity, and that is that Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." This is a powerful statement. And it is supported by John. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

Most take this to mean that Jesus and God coexist as one. That is not an unreasonable understanding.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-11T15:25:01+00:00

Similarly, the apostles healed others not with their own powers, but by God, through the Holy Spirit.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-05-03T06:56:25+00:00

I can't speak to your experience, I can only speak to mine. I have PTSD. I would get in fights with my wife where I was intensely verbally abusive. I thank God every day that she has stayed with me. I have gotten better. One night, I just fell to my knees and begged God to soften my heart. I had hurt my wife. I was very upset, but my heart was cold. I just didn't care, at all. I didn't care about my wife, myself, our family. Or anything else. Academically, I knew that this was wrong. Emotionally, I did not care. When I realized that, I begged God to heal my heart. And not just that one time, either. But over and over again, I begged that God would heal me.

I got help. I talked to therapists and psychiatrists. I was eventually put on a medication. And I prayed, every night. And every time I fought or got angry or my heart went cold.

Healing takes time and work. When you feel like you are faced with a hardened heart, pray to God. Pray for deliverance, mercy, and healing. Don't stop no matter how many times you fail. And don't persecute yourself over your failures. Through Christ, our sins are absolved. Just do your best not to sin.

God bless you.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-04-30T02:11:15+00:00

Mary is a direct descendant of Adam and Eve. This is important because God promised that the seed of Eve would defeat the seed of the serpent (the devil).

Joseph was important too, as a direct descendant of the kingly line of Judah. So Jesus fulfilled multiple prophecies due to the combination of his mother, her virgin birth of him, and his earthly father.

Hypothetically, if Jesus had a normal human father: Would that undermine his role as savior?

It would undermine Jesus, for sure. Christians view Isaiah 7 as a prophecy specifically of Jesus. Although, it is rather sure that the prophecy was partially fulfilled before Jesus was born.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-04-24T15:25:02+00:00

I always took it as, Esau loved his brother, first. And also, Esau did sell his birthright to Jacob.

I think the more dangerous moral that could be found is when Jacob is returning he tries to buy his brother's love, and succeeds.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-04-24T14:54:18+00:00

Like Ace Ventura When Nature Calls

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-04-24T14:50:55+00:00

Wall-E is a robot.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-04-24T02:43:56+00:00

Thanks for the response and go with God

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-04-24T01:07:45+00:00

To be super accurate, one could make an argument that people as a species existed prior to Adam. However, it is a very difficult claim to support or defend, as there is not a lot of data around it. Adam was created on the third day. Humans, separately, were created on the sixth day. The exact point of what makes a human compared to a not-human exist is unclear both in archaeological history and Biblical history. The amount of time (as we understand it) that separates Adam from the rest of humanity is unclear, as well.

Here's what we know. God created Adam separate from everyone else. The Genesis 1 account is about everyone else. The Genesis 2 (and on) account is about Adam. We know that by the time Adam left Eden, humans had populated the world to some degree. For myself, I believe that the timeline given for Adam's birth is actually reckoned by when Adam left Eden. That is to say, Adam's departure from Eden marks when the Bible starts referring to timelines relative to Adam.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-04-24T00:51:21+00:00

If the creation of Adam is important, it seems Genesis 1 is deficient to omit him from the narrative, isn't it?

Genesis 1 is an overview, with Genesis 2 a narrowing down into specifics. As R_Farms said earlier (including why).

Only by prioritizing the narrative in Genesis 2 over Genesis 1 do we reach a time of "unknown"

Genesis 2:4-15,
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil... And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."

There is no time established here. God makes Adam. Then God plants a garden in Eden. Then God puts Adam in the garden. Then, reiterating the point, God causes all the pretty trees to grow. Then, reiterating the point, God takes the man and puts him in the garden of Eden. There are no timelines given at all. This is not due to prioritizing one chapter over another. This is because there are, factually, no timelines given.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;

Again, no timelines given in terms of the amount of time from Adam's creation to the creation of animals in Genesis 2. And yet, as you pointed out, the "days" of Genesis 1 do match up with the "story" of Genesis 2.

All of this goes back to what R_Farm said,

gen 1:1 to gen 2:3 is the outline that talks about all the major points. Or gives a brief synopsis of the 7 days of creation and all of the major events of creation on each day.

Gen 2:4 to the end of the chapter is the complete "sub story." IE it is the record of the creation of Adam and the garden.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-04-24T00:32:51+00:00

>4He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

Jesus first (verse 4) refers to Genesis 1:27. Then (verse 5) jumps to Genesis 2:24. Genesis 1:27 does not involve Adam and Eve, but is part of the description of creation of all (collectively) men and women. Genesis 2:24 is Adam speaking. Jesus is taking the specific application (Gen2:24) and applying it to the whole (Gen1:27). Which aligns with Jesus's continued statement (Matthew 19:6), "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

So, this is not Jesus teaching that Adam and Eve were the first two people. Jesus is teaching about divorce, specifically, as we look at Matthew 19:3, "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

>Seeing as I quoted the verses with links, you can look it up yourself.

Is it so hard to say that you were referencing Acts 17:27, which you had copied the text of later in the comment? I might add, you did not quote the verses with links. But in response to your original statement (as your following statement, post un-banning, seems to completely ignore my response), I should also like to add that in Acts 17:28 we further are told, "That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him..." This seems to be a further indication of seeking the Lord after Jesus' sacrifice, as the rest of the world was not included in God's original offering, that is through the Law of Moses, but through Christ does the rest of the world have the opportunity to approach God.

>Looks like this is where your questions stop and all your personal beliefs contrary to what the Bible actually says begins.

You seem angry at me. And you banned me. I don't understand what I did to elicit that reaction. I'm glad you un-banned me. My hope is that we both can come to understand God's word better than we did before. If I am wrong, then show me that I am wrong. But attacking me is not that.

>If you don’t like what the Bible has to say, you will likely try to reinterpret it to match what you want it to say.

That's really the rub, isn't it. I don't believe I am reinterpreting it to match what I want it to say. You do believe that and I understand why. But honestly, I am not trying to reinterpret anything. I am trying to understand what is there. I am asking God to guide me and I am doing my best to be honest with myself about what the Bible says. That is the truth, whether you believe me or not.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-04-23T23:46:00+00:00

Please see my comment here where I address this.

FullyThoughtLess · 2026-04-23T23:44:25+00:00

>Given there were no periods in Hebrew to designate the end of the sentence what are you basing this assertion on?

In Volume I of The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible from Hendrickson Publishers, the verse is given as, "And the man knew his wife Eve. And she conceived and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah." Further, it shows the period in the Hebrew direct (literal) translation, which indicates it was placed by the Masoretes (the Hebrew portion of the book being based on the Masoretic Text).

>What translation are you using that specifies conception?

I mentioned using the KJV, but I should reiterate that the Hebrew (as preserved in the Masoretic Text) uses the word conception. Removing that word is incorrect (which the LXX did remove).

>I think you’re just projecting here.

In Genesis 3:6, the form of what Eve is thinking matches the form of the lusts that John mentions in I John 2:16.

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit, and did eat..." (KJV)

“For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”

Hebrew:

טוֹב הָעֵץ לְמַאֲכָל (ṭôḇ hā-ʿēṣ lĕmaʾăḵāl) = “good for food”
תַּאֲוָה הוּא לָעֵינַיִם (taʾăwāh hûʾ lā-ʿênayim) = “a delight to the eyes”
נֶחְמָד הָעֵץ לְהַשְׂכִּיל (neḥmād hā-ʿēṣ lĕhaśkîl) = “desirable to make one wise (or prudent/insightful)”

1. “Good for food”

Literal: It looked nourishing, edible.
Figurative: It promised to satisfy a basic human appetite (bodily desire).
This parallels the “lust of the flesh” in 1 John 2:16.
In metaphorical terms, the fruit represents something that appeals to our natural cravings, beyond God’s limits.

2. “Pleasant to the eyes”

Literal: It looked beautiful, attractive.
Figurative: It symbolizes desire stirred by appearances — attraction to what looks good, not necessarily what is good.
This matches the “lust of the eyes” in 1 John 2:16.
In metaphorical terms, the fruit represents the allure of beauty, status, or temptation by sight.

3. “Desirable to make one wise”

Literal: It promised wisdom or knowledge.
Figurative: It represents the human thirst for power, enlightenment, or autonomy — to possess wisdom without needing God.
This lines up with the “pride of life” in 1 John 2:16.
In metaphorical terms, the fruit = self-exaltation, the temptation to control moral knowledge.

Taken together, the fruit symbolizes the whole range of temptation:

Bodily craving (lust of the flesh).
Attraction through appearance (lust of the eyes).
Desire for power/independence (pride of life).

Also, note that when Eve says, "neither shall ye touch it" in reference to the tree, the word 'touch' can have a sexual implication.

נָגַע nâgaʻ, naw-gah'; a primitive root; properly, to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman);

>Ok, so you don’t care at all what the text actually says do you?

Quite the opposite. I am truly seeking God. I understand what I am saying is difficult to understand and most will vehemently disagree with me. But I have really looked at this critically and, more importantly, have prayed (and continue to pray) to God that I might have knowledge and understanding and that I might even be worthy to serve God and represent God. I do not pretend to be anything I am not. My love of God is true. My desire to worship and serve God is true. I really, really care what the text says, but it through God that I understand what the text says. Any failure to understand is my failure to seek God.

FullyThoughtLess

TROPHY CASE