if good things were the criteria for entering heaven you might have a point.  But that's not how God set it up.  Getting into heaven has nothing to do with how good we are.  The bible is clear that even our best deeds are filthy before God because we are sin tainted.  

There are many non believers I've met that are nice people and do many wonderful deeds, but they are still lost without God.  Instead of depending on God for salvation they depend on themselves.  It's not going to fly with God.  

The 10 commandments were set up to show us how far we fall short.  Not one of us can say we can keep them.  When we break one we are in violation of them all. 

 That's why when he gave us those commandments he also gave us the sacrificial system to go along with it.  This system was to point to the one who would come and be the final sacrifice someday when he would keep the law (commandments) perfectly and atone for our sins once and for all.

It all comes down to either we accept the sacrifice that Christ atoned for us or we don't.  Many would rather choose to work their way in themselves not knowing they don't have to. Christ said on that day many will claim they did all these good works and he will say he never knew them.  Why?  Because he didn.'t.  They didn't do these good deeds for him.  They did them for themselves.

All that is required of us is to lay down humbly at the cross and thank God for his sacrifice for our sins and show others how thankful we are.  Our good deeds should flow from this thankful loving new heart of gratitude.  Otherwise we are doing good deeds for good deeds sake with all sorts of motivations that could be suspect.  Only God knows the motivations of the heart.   People do good things for various reasons. 

What he did was called imputation. It's a banking term and means "added to one's account." 

 There were three such cases of this in scripture.  The first was with Adam when he sinned.  His sin was imputated to our account (Rom 5:12).  So we carried that sin from Adam.  The second imputation was when our sin was imputed to Christ on the cross (Isa 53:5-6, John 1:29).   That's why he cried out on the cross heavily burdened with our sin.  "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" 

 The last imputation was when Christ imputed grace and righteousness to all who put their trust in him (Rom 5:17-19). 

So now when God looks at those who put their trust in this final sacrifice He sees that we are cleansed or called righteous because of HIS righteousness, not our own. 

So we can work ourselves to death and it's not going to buy us heaven.  Heaven is not for sale.  It's already been purchased by the one who died for us.   He redeemed us at the cross and will be back later to collect his inheritance when the final day of harvest is ready. 

NEPHILIM_x POSTS:

KFC,

Even though I don't agree with every word, your #44-46 comments encouraged me...I shouldn't have lost my patience and given up so easily.

Ok, so hold on. When the bible says God hardened a heart, what it REALLY meant is the omnipotent God just didn't soften a heart because it had been too much? Sssssssorry but if you're going to dance around a semantic like that (and in fact, create your own interpretation) then I think it shows you've run out of ammo. Considering that God had interfered with mankind plenty prior to that, I don't see why it's an issue. What if we interpret such and such a passage this way, or that way, just to fit an argument? Come now, use reason. That's where you start getting disputes about whether or not masturbation is a sin, or if it was just a sin that one time Onan (iirc) pulled out, when he was explicitly told he was going to knock that woman up? Besides, god directly states the reason he's doing this is to show off his power.

Furthermore as far as contradictions go, there are plenty. I don't even mean minor ones like what Jesus said before he died; that's very small and really not such a big deal. It's as simple as whether or not a divorced woman can remarry.

Deuteronomy 24:1-2: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

Luke 16:18: Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Or is wealth a sign of righteousness or wickedness?

For: Psalm 37:25: I have been young, and now am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread.

Psalm 12:1,3 Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord... wealth and riches shall be in his house.

Proverbs 15:6: In the house of the righteous is much treasure.

You and I both know about the rich man entering heaven and the eye of the needle. I'll give you that you could argue it means spiritual riches, but I'm more prone to believe it's material (given bread, the distinct use of the term riches). It's a little vague if you want to go the spiritual angle, but the divorce issue clearly isn't vague.

Let's go with one more clear contradiction, again in regards to marriage. Is it ok to marry a nonbeliever?

1 Corinthians 7:12-14 says: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 says: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye seperate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will recieve you.

These are just a few of the many, many contradictions present.

Onto the Egyptian plagues. You're right in that some were indeed aimed at insulting Egyptian gods (if you believe the narrative, at least), but there are natural explanations for every single plague: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_egypt#Natural_explanations

By the way, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why god favours a certain people over another. If God repeatedly sent judges to bring Israel back into line, why did he not do the same for other nations? Why did he have the Israelites butcher other nations? Why could he not bring them into line peaceably? Does he simply not care about all his creations in the same way? I don't buy this "they were too wicked" nonsense, particularly when later on there's a certain passage about those who live by the sword die by the sword, or that you should turn the other cheek. Swords to plowshares and all that. Why did God go from a jealous deity with an awful temper to (supposedly) all loving, always forgiving?

I'm not following you. A clear contradiction?  What is?   Why do you think this is a contradiction?  The bible is clear.  A believer should not marry an unbeliever.  Just like pairing two oxen together.  They will be going in diff directions.  You gave good scripture for this.  Just read it.  In the OT it was the same.  The Jews were to marry their own and stay away from the unbelievers because they would turn their eyes away from the true God and they would follow the pagan gods. 

There are NO contradictions in scripture. 

Riches are not the problem.  This is talking about physical riches.  It's the love of money that is the root of all evil.  What Jesus was saying was that it wasn't impossible for a rich man to go to heaven but that it's easier for a camal to go thru an eye of a needle instead of a rich man entering heaven because the rich man is more apt to put his faith and trust in his riches than in God.  Riches can be an idol in our lives if we let it get between us and God.

Abraham, a man of God was rich.  David and Solomon were rich.  Nicademous was rich and buried Christ and another rich man lent his tomb for the body of Christ.  No contradiction.  It's not money that's evil...it's the love of money.  Big diff.  It's not about the physical, it's about the spiritual heart that God is interested in. 

This has nothing to do with masturbation.  It has to do with obedience to God.  If you know the story you would understand it had to do with bringing children into the world for a brother who had died childless.  It was very important back then that the line not die out and in this case........Jesus would be coming thru the line.  The whole idea had to do with preserving the line for the expected Messiah to come in.  So this was a case of rebellion which is the highest form of treason against God.

It would be wrong if you're just trying to be right and win an arguement.    A text taking out of context is nothing but a pretext.  Context, context, context...very important.  I'm all about reason.  I think I spelled out pretty clearly what you were asking.  In Post #44 I gave you the exact scriptures and yet........you ran from that and went to other scripture and other subjects????    What?  No answer? 

Really?  So you're familiar with the exposition of scripture? 

If you did, you'd know this happens alot.  I can give you lots of examples if you'd like.  Quite often in scripture when God allows something to happen it's as if he did it.  He didn't but because everything that happens to us happens thru the filter of God it's as if he does it.  For instance.....when Job was going thru his trials it was because God had allowed Satan to do so much to Job.  But Job said of God "thou he slays me, I will yet trust him."  

It's like the buck stops with God.  He is responsiblie for everything even if it's because he merely allowed things to happen.

I can see you are disposed to beliving the lie instead of the truth.  If you're honest you will reason by looking at both sides of the issue.  It's up to you but I would suggest you look at the explanations that are provided by people who are very familiar with the bible instead of the ones whose agenda is to tear it down without even taking the time to read the context and compare scripture with other scripture. 

It's a battle.  I know.  And it's not one of flesh and blood.  It's a spiritual battle for the truth.  On one side, we have the clear, complete divine word of God.  On the other side, we have the lies, distortions, and accusations by the supreme accuser of all times, Satan who started planting seeds of doubt in the minds of the only two people on the earth to begin with.

Lot's of why questions here.  To be honest the "whys" are the hardest to answer but I'll do my best.

God is not a God who shows favoritism.  He didn't favor me in the same sense that we favor each other.  We show favoritism by looking at the outside.  We favor the rich and the powerful for the poor and the shameful.   He reached down, breathed life into me as he did countless others.  I don't know why me.  I just know that once I was dead, and now I'm alive.  I can feel and know the difference. 

Why not other nations?  For the same reason as he chooses individuals.  Not because they were special or better than any other nation.  The whole thing about chosing us as individuals or the Jews was motivated by Love. For a hint read Deut 7:6-8

"For you are a holy people to the Lord thy God.  The Lord your God has chosen you to be a special people to himself above all people that are upon the face of the earth.  The Lord did not set his love upon you nor choose you because you were more in number than any people for you were the fewest of all people.  But because the Lord loved you and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn to your fathers, has the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." 

God is still the same God in the OT as he is in the NT.  The truth of God's saving nature is  taught in the OT as it is in the NT.  The idea that the God of the OT is a vengeful, wrathful ogre compared to the gentle, loving NT Christ is not at all accurate. 

I can give you OT scripture after OT scripture easily enough about how loving, caring, patient and merciful God was.  You mentioned the Judges.  Have you ever read that book?  If you did, you'd see time and time again, including at the end it says "everyone did what was right in their own eyes."   Yet God still had patience for them.  Even though the Jews apostasized and committed adultery against God repeatedly, he forgave them and loved them still.  Even after he sent his son to die for them, and they rejected this offer, he's still not done with them.  One day, even afterall they've done against Christ, he will open their eyes and they will finally "get it."  That's what this is all about.  That's why we're going thru all of this. 

As a parent, I punished my children when they were rebellious.  That is no diff than God.  But if you only showed up at my house when I punished my kids and never saw my loving caring side then you wouldn't have an accurate picture of me as a parent. 

That's exactly what you're doing as you paint a picture of what you believe God is without  even knowing Him. 

"Come let us reason together."   Isa 1:18

I'm curious about this one.  I never heard this come up as a contradiction.  So if you would please...enlighten me? 

I'm getting busier and busier lately and have to start writing a research paper on vibrio vulnificus, a flesh eating bacteria, this weekend, so my replies are going to be less and less frequent. Just a heads up.

Yes, there is a contradiction about marrying unbelievers. The very first one says go for it; the second says not to. "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." How can that be taken any other way but "Yeah its fine, stay with them"?

Riches. Luke 6:24: "Woe to you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation."
James 5:1: "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you."

The implication in both of those is that being rich is an earthly reward that will do you no good. Additionally, the quotes I brought up regarding wealth being a reward for piety imply that it's a universal reward for being pious. "In the house of the righteous is much treasure."

You took me the wrong way about Ona. I understand and agree with -your- interpretation about it; however I brought it up as an example of how different interpretations can bring totally different meanings: it has been used by many as an argument against masturbation, that's all. Wasn't a slam on you.

Once again I'm getting the "you aren't looking at this right" argument. For what it's worth, I read it in its entirety, old and new testament, at the age of 14, without expectation or foregone conclusion. This -is- the result of my unbiased view; arguably it was biased FOR the bible though because I attended catholic grade and high schools, and you can guess what light it was cast in. Upon actually reading it, I was disgusted. Sorry.

I'm still not understanding why God chose to love one nation more than another of his own creations. If he happened to get into another jealous mood, I guess that's too bad, he himself should (well, would) know we are built with limitations he himself put there. It's like beating up a child for not doing something the right way after not teaching them, except it's not just a spanking, it's wholesale slaughter of nations. That is why I find it repugnant. If I found you, as a parent, breaking a childs limbs, you can bet I would be disgusted regardless of how "loving" you were.

What do you mean, what the jews did against Christ? His death was completely necessary for his story, just like Judas' betrayal. He can't very well be the sacrifice for mankind if he dies of old age. On that note, why does god have to kill his kid to change a rule? And how much of a sacrifice is death if you know you'll rise back up and ascend to paradise? And again, no, jews do not suddenly go "ohhhh wait yeah ok im down with jesus now". At most you have what -some- jews did against christ.

Job was also the victim of god taking a dumb bet with the loyal opposition. Job suffers immensely and his entire family is slaughtered not due to mere circumstance, not due to impeity, but because god wanted to prove a point, one he should, as an omnipotent being, already know would be true. I guess the devil really is powerful, if he outright tempted god into a test when the bible does say elsewhere not to test your lord.

The last words of Jesus are, as I said, something I feel to not be terribly important and as contradictions go, really not something to care about at all. John 19:30 says his last words were "It is finished"; Luke 23:46 says it was "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit". Matthew 27:46 says "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

ok, good luck on your paper.  Sounds interesting. 

You previously asked me if I believe a believer should marry an unbeliever and you quoted scripture that was clear the answer was no.  This scripture you gave above does not contradict this.  This is a total diff scripture.  This is a situation when two unbelievers marry and one becomes a believer.  The question is.....does the believer now leave the marriage?  The answer is no.  The believer in the marriage will sanctify the marriage.  Do you know what that means?  That means in an unbelieving household there is a believer that is "set apart" for God and will be a good witness to her/his family.  If they separate there's no light/witness in the home.  There's a greater chance now that the unbeliever will come to the faith as well as any children in the house. 

Besides all that, God hates divorce.  He says that once man and woman join they should not separate but stay together.  I've known lots of these mixed marriages over the years and have seen some wonderful things come out as a result of them with the unbelieving spouse coming into the faith with his wife who first became a believer and vice versa. 

So no contradiction here. 

I've heard that there's more about riches or finances than any other subject in scripture.  There are some who are rich and doomed and some who are rich and blessed.  You're right that our earthly riches are not going to save us.  As long as we understand that and do good with how God blessed us we should be ok.  When we look at our riches as being above others and put our trust in them instead of God, we're not in a good place.  There is a wealth and health gospel floating around that is totally bogus.  Wealth is not a universal reward for being pious.  Some of the most Godly people thru the centuries didn't have two cents to call their own......like the poor old widow who gave all she had.  Jesus didn't have a place to lay his head and he came from two complete nobodys. 

Being rich or poor has nothing to do with our salvation.  Riches or material possessions are not the problem.  The love of these things can be a big problem if they get in the way of your love for God. 

and I had a hunch where you got that from.  The Catholics love this verse and love to use it for prohibiting birth control.  Like we agreed on it has to do with rebellion against God and nothing more.  Rebellion to God is like the sin of witchcraft he says.  It's like we've been seduced or hypnotized by the opposition. 

All you had to say was Catholic and I completely understand.  But reading the bible once at 14 is not really how you read this book.  That was good and a start but it's truly a lifetime of study.  I've been reading this for over 40 years and I keep finding new information.  It's like finding another puzzle piece.   You seem to know more than most so I'm thinking you've either put these things to a test on others or you've been contemplating them for a while now.  Well....either that or you've got some bible hating site that's feeding you......  Not like there's a shortage out there. 

These other nations were very very evil.  If you go back in history and read about these nations you'd understand why God did what he did.  The Assyrians for instance did some pretty horrific things that make the Jeffrey Dalmers and Mansons of our days look like kindergarteners.  God looked down after the flood and lovingly picked a nation to be a light to other nations.  This rag tag group of Jews that God picked were a minority compared to some of the other nations out there.  But it all goes back to Gen 12 and God's promise to Abraham anyhow.  That's why he did all those miracle in Egypt to prove that the God of Abraham was the true God.  Many Egyptians were convinced and went with the Jews during the Exodus out of Egypt.  God was all for the other nations coming into the faith of the Jews.  That was also a promise to Abraham, that many nations would be blessed as a result of him and his descendants. 

well it may look like that from our perspective but God knew that Job could handle this.  I would think it an honor if God thought me strong enough to take such a situation. (but I think God knows I'm a wus!).   Testing is not unbiblical.  Tempting is.  We can test God and he says he tests us.   God does test us, but not for his benefit....for ours!  Yes God knew the outcome with Job.  But did Job?  Testing of our faith is a good thing really.  It's not pleasant when you're in the thick of it, but the outcome shows the evidence for your faith.  They say you only know what a teabag is made of when it gets into hot water right?  Same with us.   I don't know how I will react to a situation until I get into it.  It's good spiritual building character to be tested once in a while.  Just like being in school and being tested on what you've been taught.  You don't know what you've really retained until you've been tested on it.  Right? 

I know alot of Christians over the years who took great solace in the book of Job.  I'm thinking what Job went thru has helped millions of Christians over the years.  God richly rewarded him afterwards.  Did you know that God doubled all that was taken from him but his children?  The reason for this is because he would be reunited with his children.....all of them eternally.  For me, if I thought God was going to do that for my kids, I would gladly suffer as Job did. 

oh, ok.  There were seven sayings of Christ on the cross total.  We piece them together by looking at all the gospels.  The gospels remember are four eyewittness accounts from 4 diff perspectives.  The fact that they agree and can fit together but are not copy cats speaks well for the case against collusion.  To get the total picture of these 3 1/2 yrs you have to piece all the gospels together like a puzzle.  Quite often there is repetition and other times one says what another leaves out. 

There is no contradiction here just three diff accounts of what Christ said on the cross.  I'd have to look up but I think the first two you gave me were the last two (of 7) statements he said before he died. 

Are you actually reading my posts? I posted first the "yeah its fine to be with an unbeliever" scripture, alongside the one saying it wasn't. The point was to illustrate how radically different both are. Are you just skimming through or what?

In regards to the cross, differing accounts are still contradictions, but as I said, ultimately minor and irrelevant ones. And where are you getting the idea that I haven't read the bible since I was 14? Wouldn't the whole "god sending bears to maul children" quote alone, as it's rather obscure, be enough to signal "hey this guy probably read it more often than 11 years ago"?

And I don't care that these other nations were (supposedly) evil; two wrongs don't make a right and while I understand that historically what the jews did was fairly standard for the era, it doesn't make it civilized, nor were the jews ragtag. If they can kill off 3000 of their own people for worshipping a golden calf, odds are their population is plenty large enough for nation. And you and I both know there are plenty of sequences in the OT wherein Israel murders man, woman and child.

Children. Already your god had forsaken children? Let us not forget the ol' "run your sword through their bellies" in regards to pregnant women. I guess abortion is only wrong if you're not heretical.

Catholic mis-education?....Is that truly from where all your questions stem?  Did you get a good Catholic education otherwise?...it seems you did by your writing and critical questioning here on JU.....and writing a research paper on  flesh eating bacteria isn't chump change either. Good going on that.

It was His Way (salvation plan) of dealing with sin....Original Sin transmitted by Adam and Eve and actual sin....pride being the #1.   

when you said this:

that's the only indication you've given me so that's all I can go on. 

no not necessarily because I've answered this exact quote by atheists before who got it from one of those bible bashing sites.  So just putting an objectionable quote up tells me nothing.  I can only go by what you reveal to me.  Throwing up a quote doesn't tell me anything about your bible reading habits.  I'm not a mind reader.  Sorry. 

not necessarily.  They can just be differing accounts.  It would only be a contradiction if one said something to the effect that Christ ONLY uttered "it is finished" while the other account said that Christ ONLY spoke the words, "Into your hands I commit my spirit." 

It's like this:  if you and I saw an accident and then recounted it to a reporter we might say something diff but not be contradicting each other.   For instance if you said there was a fireman, a policeman and a paramedic who rushed to the scene immediately but I told the reporter later that in the rush of things I saw a fireman and a paramedic there but didn't mention the policeman......is that a contradiction?  No.  It would be a contradiction if I said ONLY a fireman and paramedic showed up and there wasn't any police on the scene. 

yeeeesss I am.  But as you're posting you're also speaking about contradictions.  So I'm reading you as saying that there's a contradiction here.  You put both sides down with an objection.  I was just trying to answer you. 

They are both radically different because they are two diff animals.  One has to do with choosing a mate BEFORE marriage and the other has to do with coming to Christ AFTER the marriage and what to do with our partner at that time. 

Yes, and there are reasons for this.  God says to us many times that his ways are not our ways and our ways are not his ways.  Remember this same God died on a cross in an excruciating way that he didn't have to.  He did it for us, even though we were yet his enemy.   

Remember from God's vantage point he sees it all.   We are looking only thru a knothole in a fence as the parade passes by.  We can only see what is directly in front of us and what has been revealed to us.  Are you going to judge God for his actions on the little you know? 

Yes and no....Depends what you mean by "necessary".

Yes, as long as you realize that both Christ and Judas employed their free will...Christ in dying for us as He did and Judas' free will in betraying Him.

Just to be clear Lula.  Judas was chosen for his role.  Christ even said so. 

"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name those that you gave me I have kept and none of them is lost BUT the son of perdition that the scripture might be fulfilled."  John 17:12

"Have I not chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?"  6:70

He said this way before Judas exercised his free will.  Which brings us right back to election again.....ooops another thread. 

Of course I'm going to judge god by "what little" I can see, given that "what little" we can see in the Old Testament is wholesale slaughter of nations for his "plan", rules which have no place in a modern, and/or moral society, and his New Testament appearance is suddenly so much gentler (until of course you hit Revelations, along with many other passages prior). Add on to that that apparently he'll gladly damn us simply for using logic based on "what little" we've seen, instead of gently explaining and rehabilitating.

Consider. In some countries in Africa, the adult infection rate for AIDS is 40% and up. The Catholic Church still forbids the use of condoms and actively dissuades these people from using them. That's lunacy, pure and simple. And in regards to the Unbeliever spouse thing, both are referring to marriage.

Look at it this way. In the old testament god saw people working together peacably (tower of babyl). So God destroys the tower, scrambles everyones language, and later goes on to order a series of wars. I don't care what "plan" a parent would have; if they made one child beat up the rest of his children, that's just... disgusting. Let's not forget his wholesale murder of the entire planet except for one family, with a rainbow being his reminder of mercy. Come on.

Now for the record, I consider the Old Testament to be by and large simply legends with only some points rooted in something historical. I don't think the entire earth flooded, or literal giants getting taken down by slings.

New Testament is certainly an improvement, given Jesus decides his father's rules such as stoning someone to death for wearing linen and wool in the same outfit, stoning someone to death for eating bacon-wrapped shrimp, stoning someone to death for having sex on their period, and sending women out into the wilderness to live in huts made of sticks when they're on the rag, and sacrificing an animal for every other minor infraction you'll commit ten times a day are outdated and unnecessary. That having been said, if you don't get the memo that Jesus died for you you're screwed anyway, which is what I find injust.

If there is a god claimed to be one of love and mercy who is genuinely concerned with human affairs and has an afterlife prepared, I find it much more logical that he would discuss the things you did in life with you, (briefly) punish and rehabilitate in the case of murderers or the massively bigoted (for example), and then just chill out. That's a relationship - not being forced to follow orders on pain of eternal torment.

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.  He says this countless times.  Jesus mourned over Jerusalem on the way to the cross because they rejected Him.  God repeatedly, forgave the Jews after they went against him.  Read the book of Judges sometime and get the whole cycle they would go thru.  They would rebell against God.  God would punish them, they would cry out.  God would forgive.  They would rebell and it started all over again. 

God is a God of love, forgiveness and mercy.  He says Mercy truiumps Judgment.  That's not the God you're describing but that's the God the bible depicts.  God never ever moves against us without first issuing plenty of warning. His desire is that we turn away from evil and towards Him.  He understands how sin spreads quickly and contaminates like a disease.

Yes, let's consider the book of Revelation.  That's been around for how long?  How many people thumb their noses at it?  Yet God will be the bad God because he carries out this prophecy?  Come again? 

Just like Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah issued warning after warning of the impending judgments in the OT, so too will Revelation be our warning of the end times.  Back in the prophets' time they were laughed at mocked, and persecuted for following God and delivering the warnings that if they didn't turn around God would send them into exile.  That's exactly what happened. 

God doesn't just slam us with no warning.  Believe me.....you know enough even now.  You will have no excuse when you stand before a loving and merciful but also a just God. 

He set up a standard from the get go.  There is no remission of sin without blood.  It's either yours or His.  You decide.   We either can accept his "cure" for our ills or we can reject it.  Now you have to decide if "your cure" is better than his.