CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: This is the threat

Original Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses

Lugol’s Iodine Free S&H
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine Solution. Restore lost reserves.

Your Ad Here
Place your ad here !

Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
been there done that Views: 2,463
Published: 14 years ago
This is a reply to # 1,012,388

Re: This is the threat

We are free moral agents (we have free will/conscience), in other words, no "mark" can "steal" our soul, but neither should we ever accept it on our right hand or forehead. On principle alone, we should prefer the destruction of our bodies or whatever hardship that results from refusal of the "mark" on our right hand or forehead. The only thing an electronic chip could do to anyone is influence our emotions (aggressive/passive) by triggering our neurons, synapse firing, nervous system, muscle contraction, etc., but we each have the free will choice to either allow ourselves to fall prey to these effects or not. Many Christians who simply base their devotion on faith and the fact that The Lord chose us might very well fall prey to the effects, but those Christians who base their devotion on LOVE (the GREATEST of these, 1 Corinthians 13:13) and the fact that they CHOSE GOD (like Job did).

The microchip itself is not spirtually harmful (except if on the right hand or forehead), it may influence bad behavior or passive, irresponsible behavior (we all have the final say in how we react).

Some choose to simply walk by faith (faith can falter, it is shallow).

Some (few by comparison) walk by love (love never fails) because they live by the spirit. God says that "IF we live by the spirit..." (and some have a better idea of love than those who choose to "walk by faith" and NOT love), let us also walk by the spirit (which never fails, Galatians 5:16 and 25).

Many Christians all throughout history have found it comfortable and convenient to simply "walk by faith" in order to avoid shedding a tear in their devotion as the women of scripture did (by principle, the person at the well more easily recognized the "Messiah" and would have also refused a "mark" on the right hand or forehead).

The heart cannot think or show love.

So, yes, many will have to make a choice to either accept or refuse the final chip on the right hand or forehead, but everyone has the free will to refuse and be steadfast in their love for The Lord.

The number is a very common number, I don't really understand the calculations of "Abundant number", but if you remember "Y2K", the whole problem was the ONE DIGIT
changeover to 2000. The same panic happened in the year 999 when people thought the new millenium was when Jesus would come back (turn 999 upside down and backwards). One explanation is that it is MAN'S number (time, etc.) that conflicts with God's gracious plan for humanity. It could also be that the 66 books of the bible are being INTERPRETED (they should not be INTERPRETED to mean whatever is "convenient", but simply UNDERSTOOD) by the 6th day creation (it can't be a literary reference because it would have to mean the same in every language).

Some versions of scripture suggest that it is a "A NUMBER of AN INDIVIDUAL" (that it is a LITERARY reference is impossible in all languages). It could only be a NUMERICAL reference (a number of humanity, "man's number") and that the number 666 is a very common one.

This church has done alot to break away from the legalistic interpretations, but is still very legalistic in many beliefs. Even still, it shows how the translators have taken too many liberties in their INTERPRETATIONS from the Greek.

All verses are from the RSV.


Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021

1.000 sec, (2)