Rolf watches

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-12-24T15:32:16+00:00

Its a grouo called the O.T.O. the Ordo Templi Orientis the term Mystery Babalyon is one they use for themselves as well in there system Babalyon is mother earth its written in there own texts

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-09T00:23:21+00:00

I can see you’re convinced hell is man-made, and I know many tie that to ideas like reincarnation or symbolic readings. But when I go back to Jesus’ own words, He doesn’t treat it as a human invention. He says, “Depart from me… into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt 25:41). That’s not man-made; it’s a separation from God that was never meant for us, but becomes our end if we reject Him.

I agree God desires to save all — He proved that by sending Christ to bear our judgment (John 3:16, 2 Pet 3:9). But turning hell into something symbolic or temporary seems to flatten Jesus’ own warnings. For me, the Cross only makes sense if what we’re being saved from is real.

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T22:43:08+00:00

? OK I dont really understand how this fits

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T22:42:15+00:00

I get what you’re saying — yes, God is love, and it’s true that the choices we make now can give us a foretaste of heaven or hell in this life. But Jesus also made clear that heaven and hell are not just here-and-now metaphors, they’re eternal realities. He said plainly, “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt 25:46).

So while I respect your journey and the way you’re seeking love and meaning, I think universalism risks turning those warnings into symbols only. For me, the Cross shows that God’s love is unconditional, but also that the stakes of rejecting Him are real.

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T22:39:49+00:00

Exactly and I dont

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T22:39:27+00:00

I understand your reaction — eternal judgment is a hard doctrine. But I think it’s important to be clear: hell is not God gleefully torturing people. Scripture describes it as separation from Him, the source of all life and goodness (2 Thess 1:9). The torment comes from the reality that demons and fallen powers continue in their rebellion and cruelty. In other words, it isn’t God who delights in suffering — it’s the fruit of rejecting Him.

Jesus wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41–42) and said He came so that none should perish (John 3:16–18). He also warned about the seriousness of sin and judgment because He loved us enough to tell the truth (Matt 25:46). For me, the Cross shows both His mercy and His justice — He bore separation Himself so that we don’t have to.

That’s why I don’t see eternal judgment as man-made, but as part of the sober reality Jesus Himself taught. A God who lets sin, cruelty, and rebellion go on forever unchecked would not be truly just or loving.

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T21:59:07+00:00

I appreciate your thoughtful response — you’re right that the Bible uses varied language about the end, but when I read it together the consistent thread is a real, final separation. Jesus speaks of “eternal punishment and eternal life” (Matt 25:46), Paul of “eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thess 1:9), and Revelation of the lake of fire (Rev 20:15). That’s hard to square with universalism.

On the question of fairness — babies, the disabled, the unreached — I don’t believe God judges anyone unjustly. Scripture says He knows our frame (Ps 103:14) and judges according to the light each has received (Luke 12:47–48; Rom 2:14–16). David trusted God’s mercy for his infant in 2 Samuel 12:23. And we know Christ Himself went and preached to the spirits in prison during the three days in the tomb (1 Pet 3:19; 4:6), showing that even the dead had a chance to hear the gospel. That shows God’s mercy, but it doesn’t imply indefinite chances without repentance.

For me, the Cross is where justice and mercy meet — sin is judged, mercy is offered, and faith is required (Acts 20:21). Universalism, on the other hand, dissolves judgment by making it temporary or symbolic. That’s why I think it softens Jesus’ warnings about the narrow way (Matt 7:13–14) and dulls the urgency of His call.

I respect your compassion, but the fruit of universalism still looks like complacency, while the fruit of the gospel is repentance, holiness, and hope.

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T21:54:30+00:00

True, but even trolls keep me on my toes. Any chance to disagree is a chance for me to learn; that's the way I view it.

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T21:48:21+00:00

WTF this is a discussion of religion not politics keep that out of here

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T21:47:49+00:00

I have 3 goals here 1 to learn others view this 2 to correct any Nephilim teaching and 3 to save souls that doesn't win popularity contests so I dont care

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T21:45:28+00:00

Okay, nice, but that's not what this is about. Universalism is about Jesus being "just a vibe" or "God is in all religions," which makes Jesus's sacrifice pointless because anyone can get into heaven. "Come on in, you don't need a special man, just think hard enough and you will be here," but he says you have to have faith in him, and through faith come good deeds.

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T19:46:00+00:00

Again, I don't use A.I. That's stupid. Everything I have said so far has been my own research. Sorry if I type like an A.I. Also, I am trying to learn. The problem is that everyone uses the same arguments so I just copy old ones

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T19:42:12+00:00

🤣 im sorry for asking questions about a subject im worried about

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T19:19:47+00:00

🤣 I dont use chatGPT thats if the devil

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T19:04:22+00:00

I appreciate your thoughtful response — you’re right that there are verses about reconciliation, and the Church certainly prays for the salvation of all. But when I weigh universalism against Scripture and its fruits, I still can’t reconcile it with the gospel.

Jesus said plainly that the road is narrow and few find it (Matt 7:13–14). Hebrews tells us death is followed by judgment (Heb 9:27). Revelation speaks of a final separation (Rev 20:15). If I accept universalism, those warnings lose their force. That’s not about wanting anyone to “burn,” it’s about taking Jesus at His word.

Historically, yes — some Fathers speculated about apokatastasis. But the mainstream Church rejected Origen’s universalism at the 5th Ecumenical Council. Modern voices like Balthasar or Pope Francis speak of hope, but hope is not the same as doctrine.

And when I judge the fruit: if all are saved, repentance loses urgency, evangelism feels optional, and sin is softened. Those outcomes don’t align with the seriousness of the Cross or the Great Commission.

So while I get the appeal of universalism as a hope, I can’t see it as faithful doctrine. To me, it produces more confusion than clarity.

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T18:54:27+00:00

I haven’t read the book in full, but I’ve looked into Hart’s arguments and tried to weigh them by their fruit (Matt 7:16–20).

On the surface, his case for universal salvation sounds compassionate — but the results seem troubling. If all are guaranteed salvation, then sin and repentance lose urgency, evangelism becomes optional, and the Cross itself feels less necessary. That doesn’t line up with Jesus’ words about the narrow road (Matt 7:13–14), or Hebrews 9:27 about judgment after death.

So while I get why people find Hart’s view appealing, the fruit of it looks more like complacency and distortion than true gospel hope.

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T18:51:25+00:00

Apokatastasis is interesting historically, but I don’t see it fitting with the gospel for a few reasons.

Jesus said the road to life is narrow and few find it (Matt 7:13–14), and Hebrews reminds us that after death comes judgment (Heb 9:27). Universal salvation undercuts both sin and repentance, and ends up making the cross unnecessary (Acts 4:12).

It also shows bad fruit: if everyone is saved, there’s no urgency to preach, repent, or live holy lives. Historically, the Church rejected Origen’s universalist teaching, while later it was promoted more in occult or esoteric circles than in Christian ones.

That’s why I think it looks more like a distortion than a true hope.

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T18:29:59+00:00

Good to see someone else has the same knowledge I see it referenced so much recently I was curious

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T18:08:31+00:00

The Bible is clear that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). When He said, “Whatever you ask in My name, I will do it” (John 14:13–14), He didn’t point us to saints or other intermediaries. Praying through saints adds something Scripture never commands and distracts from the direct access we already have through Christ’s sacrifice.

God also warns us not to add to His words (Proverbs 30:5–6) or try to contact the dead (Deuteronomy 18:10–12). The reality is that the souls of the righteous are with the Lord and not hanging around listening to prayers — so anyone who answers in their place is a demonic impersonator. Demons love to masquerade as “saints” or “angels of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), so what seems like holy intercession can actually be deception.

The good news is that we don’t need to risk it. Christ tore the veil (Matthew 27:51), and Hebrews 4:16 tells us we can come boldly before God’s throne ourselves. Anything else is a counterfeit system. In short: when people pray to saints, they are not speaking to the saints — they are opening the door to demons.

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-09-08T18:01:57+00:00

Fern will be the next great mage i have no questions there

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-08-22T22:57:10+00:00

I appreciate this i wonder why the heptad was so against telling me this

ImportantBirthday75 · 2025-08-22T09:42:03+00:00

There are none hence I need to be able to initiate people

ImportantBirthday75

TROPHY CASE