Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Auto-incrementing or auto-decrementing values at compile-time
109 views
Skip to first unread message
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 18, 2019, 3:50:03 PM4/18/19
to
I have a need fairly often to return distinct values for a return value.
I don't particularly care what the values are, but they just need to be
distinct and unique so that if they are returned later I can identify
the exact cause of the error, where it failed.
Something like this:
int my_function(void)
{
if (!test_condition1)
return -1; // Indicate it failed at this test
// Arbitrary code
if (!test_condition2)
return -2; // Indicate it failed at this test
// Arbitrary code
if (!test_condition3)
return -3; // Indicate it failed at this test
// If we get here, we're good
}
Is there an existing way in C/C++ to automatically create some value
that would allow me to add a new test and have it inject the new
value? Ideally, I'd like for the compiler abilities to be sticky,
meaning once you put in the token/whatever to identify you need a
locally scoped automatically incrementing or decrementing value, that
it bakes it into source code during the compile.
Something like coding it this way initially:
int my_function(void)
{
if (!test_condition1)
return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition2)
return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition3)
return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
// If we get here, we're good
}
And during compilation it automatically translates it to this for, baking
in the number:
int my_function(void)
{
if (!test_condition1)
return #autodec[-1]; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition2)
return #autodec_[-2]; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition3)
return #autodec_[-3]; // Indicate it failed at this test
// If we get here, we're good
}
This would allow new code to be added later without a hard-value, and
it would automatically adjust to the value inside the scope:
int my_function(void)
{
==> if (!test_condition0)
==> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition1)
return #autodec[-1]; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition2)
return #autodec_[-2]; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition3)
return #autodec_[-3]; // Indicate it failed at this test
// If we get here, we're good
}
It would change to this during compile, and write the source file
back out:
if (!test_condition0)
return #autodec[-4]; // Indicate it failed at this test
I can see doing this in an external tool, but is there some way to do
it in C/C++?
And if not, does anyone have any idea for a good syntax on how to do it?
--
Rick C. Hodgin
I don't particularly care what the values are, but they just need to be
distinct and unique so that if they are returned later I can identify
the exact cause of the error, where it failed.
Something like this:
int my_function(void)
{
if (!test_condition1)
return -1; // Indicate it failed at this test
// Arbitrary code
if (!test_condition2)
return -2; // Indicate it failed at this test
// Arbitrary code
if (!test_condition3)
return -3; // Indicate it failed at this test
// If we get here, we're good
}
Is there an existing way in C/C++ to automatically create some value
that would allow me to add a new test and have it inject the new
value? Ideally, I'd like for the compiler abilities to be sticky,
meaning once you put in the token/whatever to identify you need a
locally scoped automatically incrementing or decrementing value, that
it bakes it into source code during the compile.
Something like coding it this way initially:
int my_function(void)
{
if (!test_condition1)
return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition2)
return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition3)
return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
// If we get here, we're good
}
And during compilation it automatically translates it to this for, baking
in the number:
int my_function(void)
{
if (!test_condition1)
return #autodec[-1]; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition2)
return #autodec_[-2]; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition3)
return #autodec_[-3]; // Indicate it failed at this test
// If we get here, we're good
}
This would allow new code to be added later without a hard-value, and
it would automatically adjust to the value inside the scope:
int my_function(void)
{
==> if (!test_condition0)
==> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition1)
return #autodec[-1]; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition2)
return #autodec_[-2]; // Indicate it failed at this test
if (!test_condition3)
return #autodec_[-3]; // Indicate it failed at this test
// If we get here, we're good
}
It would change to this during compile, and write the source file
back out:
if (!test_condition0)
return #autodec[-4]; // Indicate it failed at this test
I can see doing this in an external tool, but is there some way to do
it in C/C++?
And if not, does anyone have any idea for a good syntax on how to do it?
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Scott Lurndal
Apr 18, 2019, 4:07:55 PM4/18/19
to
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>This would allow new code to be added later without a hard-value, and
>it would automatically adjust to the value inside the scope:
There are two sides to every function call - how do the callers of that
>This would allow new code to be added later without a hard-value, and
>it would automatically adjust to the value inside the scope:
function know, a priori, which return code matches which (pre)condition
failure; particularly when subsequently code gets inserted into the existing set
such that successive autogenerated return codes are shifted by one?
Just use a #define, static const uint32_t or enum and update them as needed.
Ian Collins
Apr 18, 2019, 4:18:13 PM4/18/19
to
On 19/04/2019 07:51, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I have a need fairly often to return distinct values for a return value.
> I don't particularly care what the values are, but they just need to be
> distinct and unique so that if they are returned later I can identify
> the exact cause of the error, where it failed.
>
> Something like this:
>
> int my_function(void)
> {
> if (!test_condition1)
> return -1; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // Arbitrary code
>
> if (!test_condition2)
> return -2; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // Arbitrary code
>
> if (!test_condition3)
> return -3; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // If we get here, we're good
> }
>
> Is there an existing way in C/C++ to automatically create some value
> that would allow me to add a new test and have it inject the new
> value?
An enum.
> I have a need fairly often to return distinct values for a return value.
> I don't particularly care what the values are, but they just need to be
> distinct and unique so that if they are returned later I can identify
> the exact cause of the error, where it failed.
>
> Something like this:
>
> int my_function(void)
> {
> if (!test_condition1)
> return -1; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // Arbitrary code
>
> if (!test_condition2)
> return -2; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // Arbitrary code
>
> if (!test_condition3)
> return -3; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // If we get here, we're good
> }
>
> Is there an existing way in C/C++ to automatically create some value
> that would allow me to add a new test and have it inject the new
> value?
--
Ian.
Bart
Apr 18, 2019, 4:25:37 PM4/18/19
to
On 18/04/2019 20:51, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I have a need fairly often to return distinct values for a return value.
> I don't particularly care what the values are, but they just need to be
> distinct and unique so that if they are returned later I can identify
> the exact cause of the error, where it failed.
>
> Something like this:
>
> int my_function(void)
> {
> if (!test_condition1)
> return -1; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // Arbitrary code
>
> if (!test_condition2)
> return -2; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // Arbitrary code
>
> if (!test_condition3)
> return -3; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // If we get here, we're good
> }
>
> Is there an existing way in C/C++ to automatically create some value
> that would allow me to add a new test and have it inject the new
> value? Ideally, I'd like for the compiler abilities to be sticky,
> meaning once you put in the token/whatever to identify you need a
> locally scoped automatically incrementing or decrementing value, that
> it bakes it into source code during the compile.
Not really sure what you're getting at. But this function:
> I have a need fairly often to return distinct values for a return value.
> I don't particularly care what the values are, but they just need to be
> distinct and unique so that if they are returned later I can identify
> the exact cause of the error, where it failed.
>
> Something like this:
>
> int my_function(void)
> {
> if (!test_condition1)
> return -1; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // Arbitrary code
>
> if (!test_condition2)
> return -2; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // Arbitrary code
>
> if (!test_condition3)
> return -3; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // If we get here, we're good
> }
>
> Is there an existing way in C/C++ to automatically create some value
> that would allow me to add a new test and have it inject the new
> value? Ideally, I'd like for the compiler abilities to be sticky,
> meaning once you put in the token/whatever to identify you need a
> locally scoped automatically incrementing or decrementing value, that
> it bakes it into source code during the compile.
int test(int n) {
switch (n) {
enum {base=__LINE__};
case 1:
return base-__LINE__;
case 2:
return base-__LINE__;
case 3:
return base-__LINE__;
}
return 0;
}
Returns -3, -5, -7 when called with n = 1,2,3.
A new case would return a different error (ie. negative value), with no
enums to maintain (assuming it's on a different line). Alternatively
just return -__LINENO__ for an absolute line number to pinpoint where it
went wrong in the function.
Ben Bacarisse
Apr 18, 2019, 4:37:44 PM4/18/19
to
> I have a need fairly often to return distinct values for a return value.
> I don't particularly care what the values are, but they just need to be
> distinct and unique so that if they are returned later I can identify
> the exact cause of the error, where it failed.
<cut>
> I don't particularly care what the values are, but they just need to be
> distinct and unique so that if they are returned later I can identify
> the exact cause of the error, where it failed.
> Something like coding it this way initially:
>
> int my_function(void)
> {
> if (!test_condition1)
> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> if (!test_condition2)
> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> if (!test_condition3)
> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // If we get here, we're good
> }
This ties the correctness of every calling function into the order in
>
> int my_function(void)
> {
> if (!test_condition1)
> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> if (!test_condition2)
> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> if (!test_condition3)
> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>
> // If we get here, we're good
> }
which these tests are written. I think it should be added to your
language ASAP.
<cut>
--
Ben.
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 18, 2019, 4:41:24 PM4/18/19
to
On 4/18/2019 4:07 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This would allow new code to be added later without a hard-value, and
>> it would automatically adjust to the value inside the scope:
>
> There are two sides to every function call - how do the callers of that
> function know, a priori, which return code matches which (pre)condition
> failure;
The functions pretty much always return 0 or a positive value if
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This would allow new code to be added later without a hard-value, and
>> it would automatically adjust to the value inside the scope:
>
> There are two sides to every function call - how do the callers of that
> function know, a priori, which return code matches which (pre)condition
> failure;
there were no errors.
It's contextual. how_long_is_this_text() will return a negative
value if you don't pass in a valid parameter, or 0 or a larger
value if there is content there, etc.
> particularly when subsequently code gets inserted into the existing set
> such that successive autogenerated return codes are shifted by one?
> Just use a #define, static const uint32_t or enum and update them as needed.
all the unique values.
I will probably write an external tool and add a pre-build processing
step during compilation.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 18, 2019, 4:44:42 PM4/18/19
to
first encountered with the naked #autodec into solid values which
are later identified as #autodec[-1] ... #autodec[-Nn], which allows
later #autodec portions to be added and they'll automatically insert
the next value in that location.
> I think it should be added to your language ASAP.
private email that you were going to try to refrain from responding
to my posts. Please try harder. Your failures are unbecoming.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Ben Bacarisse
Apr 18, 2019, 5:00:01 PM4/18/19
to
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 4/18/2019 4:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I have a need fairly often to return distinct values for a return value.
>>> I don't particularly care what the values are, but they just need to be
>>> distinct and unique so that if they are returned later I can identify
>>> the exact cause of the error, where it failed.
>> <cut>
>>> Something like coding it this way initially:
>>>
>>> int my_function(void)
>>> {
>>> if (!test_condition1)
>>> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>>>
>>> if (!test_condition2)
>>> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>>>
>>> if (!test_condition3)
>>> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>>>
>>> // If we get here, we're good
>>> }
>>
>> This ties the correctness of every calling function into the order in
>> which these tests are written.
>
> You missed the part where the idea I'm looking for bakes the values
> first encountered with the naked #autodec into solid values which
> are later identified as #autodec[-1] ... #autodec[-Nn], which allows
> later #autodec portions to be added and they'll automatically insert
> the next value in that location.
Yes, you are right, I did. But that part looks even worse. As far as I
> On 4/18/2019 4:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I have a need fairly often to return distinct values for a return value.
>>> I don't particularly care what the values are, but they just need to be
>>> distinct and unique so that if they are returned later I can identify
>>> the exact cause of the error, where it failed.
>> <cut>
>>> Something like coding it this way initially:
>>>
>>> int my_function(void)
>>> {
>>> if (!test_condition1)
>>> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>>>
>>> if (!test_condition2)
>>> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>>>
>>> if (!test_condition3)
>>> return #autodec; // Indicate it failed at this test
>>>
>>> // If we get here, we're good
>>> }
>>
>> This ties the correctness of every calling function into the order in
>> which these tests are written.
>
> You missed the part where the idea I'm looking for bakes the values
> first encountered with the naked #autodec into solid values which
> are later identified as #autodec[-1] ... #autodec[-Nn], which allows
> later #autodec portions to be added and they'll automatically insert
> the next value in that location.
can make out you end up with the source code not being the source code,
but I am sure I have missed something. I would advocate for an enum
that can be defined like Go's enums.
>> I think it should be added to your language ASAP.
>
> You're such a hateful person to me, Ben. You said previously in a
> private email that you were going to try to refrain from responding
> to my posts. Please try harder. Your failures are unbecoming.
--
Ben.
jacobnavia
Apr 18, 2019, 5:37:19 PM4/18/19
to
Le 18/04/2019 à 22:07, Scott Lurndal a écrit :
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This would allow new code to be added later without a hard-value, and
>> it would automatically adjust to the value inside the scope:
>
> There are two sides to every function call - how do the callers of that
> function know, a priori, which return code matches which (pre)condition
> failure; particularly when subsequently code gets inserted into the existing set
> such that successive autogenerated return codes are shifted by one?
>
And why are we discussing this brain-dead ideas from this known spammer?
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This would allow new code to be added later without a hard-value, and
>> it would automatically adjust to the value inside the scope:
>
> There are two sides to every function call - how do the callers of that
> function know, a priori, which return code matches which (pre)condition
> failure; particularly when subsequently code gets inserted into the existing set
> such that successive autogenerated return codes are shifted by one?
>
Why people here feel happy answering this kind of rubbish?
Just looking at this kind of "proposal" for his vaporware leads a sane
reader to deduce that:
1) The brain of the poster is malfunctioning badly.
2) He is just posting nonsense, vaguely related to C, to start
"discussions" to cover up his spamming.
> Just use a #define, static const uint32_t or enum and update them as needed.
>
Before coding (and also before posting rubbish) he should TURN HIS BRAIN
ON...
But apparently he can't.
leigh.v....@googlemail.com
Apr 19, 2019, 4:40:23 AM4/19/19
to
/Leigh
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 19, 2019, 8:47:54 AM4/19/19
to
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 4:40:23 AM UTC-4, leigh.v...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 10:37:19 PM UTC+1, jacobnavia wrote:
> > ...why are we discussing this brain-dead ideas from this known
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 10:37:19 PM UTC+1, jacobnavia wrote:
> > spammer?...
>
> I agree Jacob, the vaguely on topic but useless posts are obviously an
> attempted ruse by Hodgin to cover-up and/or legitimise his off topic
> religious spam...
> I agree Jacob, the vaguely on topic but useless posts are obviously an
> attempted ruse by Hodgin to cover-up and/or legitimise his off topic
Both of you will learn soon enough the significance of the messages
I post. One type of message I post is far more important than the
other to both of you, and the posts I write on the C/C++ language
and its related fields are the lesser important type by a very wide
margin.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Richard Damon
Apr 19, 2019, 9:14:10 AM4/19/19
to
compiler should NEVER go back and change the source code.
It might make sense for a developement platform (like an IDE).
Personally, it defies the rule against magic numbers, so what I would do
is have something like an enum in the header defining the interface to
the function, defining the return values for the error codes, and when I
need to add a new error code, I add an entry to the enum and return that
entry. This says that calling code has names for the various error
codes, rather than having to be littered with all the magic numbers.
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 19, 2019, 9:24:46 AM4/19/19
to
On 4/19/2019 9:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> This is NOT an operation that seems valid for a compiler, as the
> compiler should NEVER go back and change the source code.
I've had that thought, but I've also had the thought that the tools
> This is NOT an operation that seems valid for a compiler, as the
> compiler should NEVER go back and change the source code.
we use should be accommodating to the needs of some required syntax
and operations at times. We shouldn't have to diversify very far
for some features that are oft-used.
I use that pattern in pretty much every function I write that is
visible outwardly through an API. And it becomes tedious to have
to manually set the values.
Being as I code that way pretty much every day, it seems that it
would be of benefit.
> It might make sense for a developement platform (like an IDE).
to make sure return handles are not set to the INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE
constant, but that same constant isn't valid on other OSes... so
there would be value there for having platform-dependent features
added to the development platform.
But for cases that transcend OS barriers, I think it would be more
desirable to have a language-level solution.
> Personally, it defies the rule against magic numbers, so what I would do
> is have something like an enum in the header defining the interface to
> the function, defining the return values for the error codes, and when I
> need to add a new error code, I add an entry to the enum and return that
> entry. This says that calling code has names for the various error
> codes, rather than having to be littered with all the magic numbers.
I think the ability to receive source code, and have it have a user-
specified (in source code) request to assign something mechanically
rather than manually, and then re-write the altered source code back
out, is a desirable feature that the language should possess, especially
when the language is recognizing that it's working in concert with a
live developer who is coding at various times, and the compiler is not
just seeing static code that is more or less stable from a mature code
base.
Having this new ability would allow us to introduce a slew of features
which bake-in on the first compile, and are then viewed as constants
after that. The machine would do it reliably, and we wouldn't have
to get bogged down in defining extra minutia details.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Richard Damon
Apr 19, 2019, 12:38:09 PM4/19/19
to
On 4/19/19 9:25 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>> Personally, it defies the rule against magic numbers, so what I would do
>> is have something like an enum in the header defining the interface to
>> the function, defining the return values for the error codes, and when I
>> need to add a new error code, I add an entry to the enum and return that
>> entry. This says that calling code has names for the various error
>> codes, rather than having to be littered with all the magic numbers.
>
> I am unaware of the rule of magic numbers.
>
The basic rule is that a 'magic number' should appear at most once in
>
>> Personally, it defies the rule against magic numbers, so what I would do
>> is have something like an enum in the header defining the interface to
>> the function, defining the return values for the error codes, and when I
>> need to add a new error code, I add an entry to the enum and return that
>> entry. This says that calling code has names for the various error
>> codes, rather than having to be littered with all the magic numbers.
>
> I am unaware of the rule of magic numbers.
>
any program, generally to assign it to some named constant of some sort
to be used elsewhere.
Basically, if you have code that does something like:
if(error == -2) ...
You have a magic number there and you need to dig into the documentation
to have any idea what that number means (there is nothing inherent in
the value -2 that tells you what the error would be).
A second problem with magic numbers is that if you need to change what
the value is of that magic number at its source (perhaps you started
with two distinct sets of error codes with overlapping values, and now
you need them to be distinct), you now need to go through you whole
source code and change the value, and determine if that use of the value
was this magic value, or some other magic value, or maybe something that
just happened to have that value mathematically.
If every use of that magic number used a symbolic name, than changing it
is easy, you just need to change the value assigned to that symbolic name.
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 19, 2019, 12:51:41 PM4/19/19
to
On 4/19/2019 12:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/19/19 9:25 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> I am unaware of the rule of magic numbers.
>
> The basic rule is that a 'magic number' should appear at most once in
> any program, generally to assign it to some named constant of some sort
> to be used elsewhere.
>
> Basically, if you have code that does something like:
>
> if(error == -2) ...
>
> You have a magic number there and you need to dig into the documentation
> to have any idea what that number means (there is nothing inherent in
> the value -2 that tells you what the error would be).
Got it.
> On 4/19/19 9:25 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> I am unaware of the rule of magic numbers.
>
> The basic rule is that a 'magic number' should appear at most once in
> any program, generally to assign it to some named constant of some sort
> to be used elsewhere.
>
> Basically, if you have code that does something like:
>
> if(error == -2) ...
>
> You have a magic number there and you need to dig into the documentation
> to have any idea what that number means (there is nothing inherent in
> the value -2 that tells you what the error would be).
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Joe Pfeiffer
Apr 19, 2019, 7:16:24 PM4/19/19
to
"magic numbers", you're using magic numbers you haven't defined
yourself, and whose value will change if additional if's get added at
some later time.
I'd much rather use an enum and typedef
typedef enum {SUCCESS, OOPS, FATAL_ERR, ...} ReturnCode;
Daniel
Apr 23, 2019, 12:34:19 PM4/23/19
to
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 8:47:54 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> Both of you will learn soon enough the significance of the messages
> I post ... One type of message I post is far more important
>
> Both of you will learn soon enough the significance of the messages
"One's pride will bring him low ..." Proverbs 29:23
For an alternative take on Christianity from Serene Jones, check out
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/opinion/sunday/christian-easter-serene-jones.html
Be well,
Daniel
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 23, 2019, 1:08:15 PM4/23/19
to
Daniel, by posting guidance against the true teachings of Christ,
you are heaping damnation upon your own soul.
Before you step up and be a teacher of the things of God, you had
better understand what it means to be a teacher for God. Those
who rise up against Christ ... have an end that nobody wants, one
that is completely undesirable in every possible way.
See James 3:1, Luke 17:1-2.
-----
Christ and sin and salvation from sin through Christ.
It's not pride, Daniel. Not by a long shot.
> For an alternative take on Christianity from Serene Jones, check out...
Paul already forewarned about such teachers:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+4%3A1-4&version=KJV
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus
Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his
appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;
reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and
doctrine.
==> 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears;
==> 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and
shall be turned unto fables.
For an alternative take to today's modern watered down messages
on "Christianity," refer to the recorded sermons from the preachers
and pastors and teachers from the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s.
Here's a man who was on fire for God and teaches people rightly:
https://twitter.com/DavidRWilkerson
Here are some others:
https://twitter.com/WhitefieldG
https://twitter.com/Puritans_SDG
https://twitter.com/FlavelJohn
You'll find messages closer to what have been taught since Christ,
compared to today's "Christ is only love" teaching. Jesus will
forgive all of our sin, but judgment has also been placed in His
hands.
This time of grace will not run forever. It is upon the world now
because this is the "Age of the Gentiles" where Jesus reaches out
to the sinners of the world drawing them to Himself. But this age
will end soon, and what comes after will be the precursor of the
great tribulation. Nobody will want to be here for that. It's
described in the Bible as being the worst time on the planet for
man. Worse than wars. Plagues. Freezing cold. Burning heat.
Nothing else compares to what's coming.
Today is the day to ask Jesus to forgive your sin and save your
eternal soul and be set free from the judgment awaiting the whole
sinful world in the Great Tribulation.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
you are heaping damnation upon your own soul.
Before you step up and be a teacher of the things of God, you had
better understand what it means to be a teacher for God. Those
who rise up against Christ ... have an end that nobody wants, one
that is completely undesirable in every possible way.
See James 3:1, Luke 17:1-2.
-----
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 12:34:19 PM UTC-4, Daniel wrote:
> On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 8:47:54 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >
> > Both of you will learn soon enough the significance of the messages
> > I post ... One type of message I post is far more important
>
> "One's pride will bring him low ..." Proverbs 29:23
The messages I post that are more important are the ones about
> On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 8:47:54 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >
> > Both of you will learn soon enough the significance of the messages
> > I post ... One type of message I post is far more important
>
> "One's pride will bring him low ..." Proverbs 29:23
Christ and sin and salvation from sin through Christ.
It's not pride, Daniel. Not by a long shot.
> For an alternative take on Christianity from Serene Jones, check out...
Paul already forewarned about such teachers:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+4%3A1-4&version=KJV
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus
Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his
appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;
reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and
doctrine.
==> 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears;
==> 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and
shall be turned unto fables.
For an alternative take to today's modern watered down messages
on "Christianity," refer to the recorded sermons from the preachers
and pastors and teachers from the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s.
Here's a man who was on fire for God and teaches people rightly:
https://twitter.com/DavidRWilkerson
Here are some others:
https://twitter.com/WhitefieldG
https://twitter.com/Puritans_SDG
https://twitter.com/FlavelJohn
You'll find messages closer to what have been taught since Christ,
compared to today's "Christ is only love" teaching. Jesus will
forgive all of our sin, but judgment has also been placed in His
hands.
This time of grace will not run forever. It is upon the world now
because this is the "Age of the Gentiles" where Jesus reaches out
to the sinners of the world drawing them to Himself. But this age
will end soon, and what comes after will be the precursor of the
great tribulation. Nobody will want to be here for that. It's
described in the Bible as being the worst time on the planet for
man. Worse than wars. Plagues. Freezing cold. Burning heat.
Nothing else compares to what's coming.
Today is the day to ask Jesus to forgive your sin and save your
eternal soul and be set free from the judgment awaiting the whole
sinful world in the Great Tribulation.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble
Apr 23, 2019, 1:10:16 PM4/23/19
to
/Flibble
--
“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais
“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.”
– Ricky Gervais
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates
a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 23, 2019, 1:22:45 PM4/23/19
to
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 1:10:16 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> And Satan invented fossils, yes?
He did invent your understanding of them.
> And Satan invented fossils, yes?
There is always hope because of Christ, but in some people they are
so unwilling to hear the truth they keep themselves from it, making
themselves a lost cause.
lost cause, noun
a person or thing that can no longer hope to succeed or be
changed for the better.
Truly breaks my heart to see such self-destruction. A waste beyond
words to lose a soul to pride.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble
Apr 23, 2019, 1:25:57 PM4/23/19
to
Öö Tiib
Apr 23, 2019, 2:25:55 PM4/23/19
to
On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 20:25:57 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> And Satan invented fossils, yes?
You are good person, Leigh. He needed your attention
>
> And Satan invented fossils, yes?
and answered within 10 minutes how "lost cause" it
felt to be without your "And Satan invented fossils, yes?".
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 23, 2019, 3:51:32 PM4/23/19
to
is to the fact that he covers his ears and will not hear the truth.
He's Hell-bent on believing whatever he wants to believe without
regard to any facts or evidence which come his way.
I've honestly never met anyone like him, except for five year olds
who cover their ears and repeat "blah blah blah" very loud to be
defiant and avoid the adult who's speaking to them.
-----
BTW, one day you will know how sincere I am in reaching out to all
of you. You'll either become a Christian and have that infusion
of God's love within your own being and know, or you'll be standing
at your judgment before God and He will personally show you how I
have prayed for you, and cared about you, and sought with much ef-
fort to teach you the truth that your eternal soul might be saved.
On in this world is mocking men and women like me allowed. You
are able to proceed with whatever behavior toward me you feel is
appropriate. You have that freedom here. But there is coming a
day when this world will end for each of us, and we will stand
before God no longer under our own freedom and control, but are
then compelled to respond to the system He has in place that does
have rigid laws and methods. In that system, your authority and
sarcastic doltish nature will not be tolerated, and will be even
then revealed for what it is and has been also here: total de-
struction of your own soul.
I teach you the truth so you can be set free while you still
have a chance for salvation. I advise not mocking me, but rather
listening to me. I am not doing this so I can get rich. I am
doing this because I want you to have a future after you leave
this world. I want you to prosper in the love and protection of
God forever.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble
Apr 23, 2019, 4:31:25 PM4/23/19
to
Ian Collins
Apr 23, 2019, 4:42:42 PM4/23/19
to
On 24/04/2019 07:51, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 2:25:55 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 20:25:57 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>
>>> And Satan invented fossils, yes?
>>
>> You are good person, Leigh. He needed your attention
>> and answered within 10 minutes how "lost cause" it
>> felt to be without your "And Satan invented fossils, yes?".
>
> I believe you know this, but to be sure: The lost cause reference
> is to the fact that he covers his ears and will not hear the truth.
> He's Hell-bent on believing whatever he wants to believe without
> regard to any facts or evidence which come his way.
Have you ever stopped to think that you are describing yourself here?
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 2:25:55 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 20:25:57 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>
>>> And Satan invented fossils, yes?
>>
>> You are good person, Leigh. He needed your attention
>> and answered within 10 minutes how "lost cause" it
>> felt to be without your "And Satan invented fossils, yes?".
>
> I believe you know this, but to be sure: The lost cause reference
> is to the fact that he covers his ears and will not hear the truth.
> He's Hell-bent on believing whatever he wants to believe without
> regard to any facts or evidence which come his way.
You are a symptom of the the plague of irrationality and bigotry
sweeping the world. You blindly cling to your beliefs, preferring the
words of cranks and pseudo-science to established science. You glibly
reject any evidence that contradicts your beliefs as the works of Satan.
It is irrationality and blind acceptance such as yours that breads the
kind of extremism leads to events like the abomination that recently
afflicted my city. Fortunately we are an open minded society who came
together to reject ignorance and embrace all of our brother and sisters.
--
Ian.
Daniel
Apr 23, 2019, 6:08:04 PM4/23/19
to
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 1:08:15 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Daniel, by posting guidance against the true teachings of Christ
You should read Serene Jones' book Call it Grace, you should be able to get a
> Daniel, by posting guidance against the true teachings of Christ
copy from your local library. She explains why ideas about the resurrection
and the virgin birth are unimportant, that the important idea is about the
triumph of love in the midst of suffering, and she's a Christian! just like
you.
Daniel
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 23, 2019, 6:42:38 PM4/23/19
to
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 4:42:42 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 24/04/2019 07:51, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > I believe you know this, but to be sure: The lost cause reference
> > is to the fact that he covers his ears and will not hear the truth.
> > He's Hell-bent on believing whatever he wants to believe without
> > regard to any facts or evidence which come his way.
>
> Have you ever stopped to think that you are describing yourself here?
>
> You are a symptom of the the plague of irrationality and bigotry
> sweeping the world. You blindly cling to your beliefs, preferring the
> words of cranks and pseudo-science to established science. You glibly
> reject any evidence that contradicts your beliefs as the works of Satan.
Bring any point forward and we'll investigate it together.
> On 24/04/2019 07:51, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > I believe you know this, but to be sure: The lost cause reference
> > is to the fact that he covers his ears and will not hear the truth.
> > He's Hell-bent on believing whatever he wants to believe without
> > regard to any facts or evidence which come his way.
>
> Have you ever stopped to think that you are describing yourself here?
>
> You are a symptom of the the plague of irrationality and bigotry
> sweeping the world. You blindly cling to your beliefs, preferring the
> words of cranks and pseudo-science to established science. You glibly
> reject any evidence that contradicts your beliefs as the works of Satan.
> It is irrationality and blind acceptance such as yours that breads the
> kind of extremism leads to events like the abomination that recently
> afflicted my city. Fortunately we are an open minded society who came
> together to reject ignorance and embrace all of our brother and sisters.
There's a real change that takes place when you're born again.
It is the new spirit nature, new spirit life. It changes you
from the inside out.
It's not something those who have not experienced it can under-
stand, but go to local churches and ask to speak to born again
Christians. You'll hear their testimonies and you'll see how
they bear resemblance one to another.
Do not take my word for it. Go and see for yourself.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 23, 2019, 6:45:01 PM4/23/19
to
And as for the resurrection ... she has no idea what she's talking
about. She is the type of teacher that Paul warned about in the
last times:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+4%3A1-4&version=KJV
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and
shall be turned unto fables.
She's teaching what people want to hear. It is not Biblical, and
shall be turned unto fables.
it is literally damning people to Hell who believe what she is
teaching.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Ian Collins
Apr 24, 2019, 12:00:56 AM4/24/19
to
On 24/04/2019 10:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 4:42:42 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 24/04/2019 07:51, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> I believe you know this, but to be sure: The lost cause reference
>>> is to the fact that he covers his ears and will not hear the truth.
>>> He's Hell-bent on believing whatever he wants to believe without
>>> regard to any facts or evidence which come his way.
>>
>> Have you ever stopped to think that you are describing yourself here?
>>
>> You are a symptom of the the plague of irrationality and bigotry
>> sweeping the world. You blindly cling to your beliefs, preferring the
>> words of cranks and pseudo-science to established science. You glibly
>> reject any evidence that contradicts your beliefs as the works of Satan.
>
> Bring any point forward and we'll investigate it together.
That's already been tried, examples being fossils and debunked case of
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 4:42:42 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 24/04/2019 07:51, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> I believe you know this, but to be sure: The lost cause reference
>>> is to the fact that he covers his ears and will not hear the truth.
>>> He's Hell-bent on believing whatever he wants to believe without
>>> regard to any facts or evidence which come his way.
>>
>> Have you ever stopped to think that you are describing yourself here?
>>
>> You are a symptom of the the plague of irrationality and bigotry
>> sweeping the world. You blindly cling to your beliefs, preferring the
>> words of cranks and pseudo-science to established science. You glibly
>> reject any evidence that contradicts your beliefs as the works of Satan.
>
> Bring any point forward and we'll investigate it together.
blood in fossil dinosaur bones.
>> It is irrationality and blind acceptance such as yours that breads the
>> kind of extremism leads to events like the abomination that recently
>> afflicted my city. Fortunately we are an open minded society who came
>> together to reject ignorance and embrace all of our brother and sisters.
>
> I agree that blind acceptance is irrational, but mine is not.
>
> There's a real change that takes place when you're born again.
--
Ian
seeplus
Apr 24, 2019, 2:42:13 AM4/24/19
to
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:42:38 AM UTC+10, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I agree that blind acceptance is irrational, but mine is not.
?
> I agree that blind acceptance is irrational, but mine is not.
Öö Tiib
Apr 24, 2019, 4:36:11 AM4/24/19
to
On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 22:51:32 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 2:25:55 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 20:25:57 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >
> > > And Satan invented fossils, yes?
> >
> > You are good person, Leigh. He needed your attention
> > and answered within 10 minutes how "lost cause" it
> > felt to be without your "And Satan invented fossils, yes?".
>
> I believe you know this, but to be sure: The lost cause reference
> is to the fact that he covers his ears and will not hear the truth.
> He's Hell-bent on believing whatever he wants to believe without
> regard to any facts or evidence which come his way.
No, it describes yourself. You believe that master of this universe
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 2:25:55 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 20:25:57 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >
> > > And Satan invented fossils, yes?
> >
> > You are good person, Leigh. He needed your attention
> > and answered within 10 minutes how "lost cause" it
> > felt to be without your "And Satan invented fossils, yes?".
>
> I believe you know this, but to be sure: The lost cause reference
> is to the fact that he covers his ears and will not hear the truth.
> He's Hell-bent on believing whatever he wants to believe without
> regard to any facts or evidence which come his way.
booted up some sort of multiplayer MineCraft game for eternal
souls (actual us) somewhere within last 10 thousand years. The
game contains unimaginably huge physical universe where even
closest stars are outside of any hope to reach and everything in
it (physics, astrophysics, paleontology, geology, genetics etc.)
perfectly indicates that the whole thing is billions of years old.
However all the souls have limited to live on one tiny rock of it
in body of ape-like mammals for couple of decades in average
(some for days, others for century). And the whole goal of
this game is to torture all those souls who do not believe that
story for eternity after they have played that game. BTW what
about the hundreds of generations of American natives who
lived before that book of truth was brought there six centuries
ago? Hell bent not to know what they were obliged to believe?
Will their souls be tortured or not? How you explain why maker
of such universe has such communication disabilities?
> I've honestly never met anyone like him, except for five year olds
> who cover their ears and repeat "blah blah blah" very loud to be
> defiant and avoid the adult who's speaking to them.
but you just ignore all facts provided and also ignore all questions
asked.
Instead you write long and boring judgement day descriptions
back. Exactly Blah blah blah. Have you been there? So no, you
can't know any of it. It is not something someone sane *could*
somehow discuss.
Snipping that usual "If you do not believe that you will be
tortured for eternity then you will be tortured for eternity"
togma. Everybody have got that message fully from *lot* of
sources by now. It does only get less convincing when
repeated ad nauseum instead of answering concrete
questions about it.
guinne...@gmail.com
Apr 24, 2019, 6:02:20 AM4/24/19
to
You've lost it, Freddy.
Mr Flibble
Apr 24, 2019, 7:55:50 AM4/24/19
to
On 23/04/2019 23:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I agree that blind acceptance is irrational, but mine is not.
LOL.
> I agree that blind acceptance is irrational, but mine is not.
> It's not something those who have not experienced it can under-
> stand, but go to local churches and ask to speak to born again
> Christians. You'll hear their testimonies and you'll see how
> they bear resemblance one to another.
It's not something those who have not experienced it can under-
the mentally ill. You'll hear their delusions and you'll see how
they bear resemblance one to another.
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 24, 2019, 8:05:00 AM4/24/19
to
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:00:56 AM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 24/04/2019 10:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > Bring any point forward and we'll investigate it together.
>
> That's already been tried, examples being fossils and debunked case of
> blood in fossil dinosaur bones.
What points are you referring to?
> On 24/04/2019 10:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > Bring any point forward and we'll investigate it together.
>
> That's already been tried, examples being fossils and debunked case of
> blood in fossil dinosaur bones.
You do realize there is a disinformation network at work within
the scientific community to make legitimate findings and reports
be deemed something else, and therefore "explained away."
Falseness has that luxury. It can report on data using lies and
fabrications. Truth cannot.
Truth always wins in the end.
> >> It is irrationality and blind acceptance such as yours that breads the
> >> kind of extremism leads to events like the abomination that recently
> >> afflicted my city. Fortunately we are an open minded society who came
> >> together to reject ignorance and embrace all of our brother and sisters.
> >
> > I agree that blind acceptance is irrational, but mine is not.
> >
> > There's a real change that takes place when you're born again.
>
> A change that appears to blind you to the truth, common with cults.
I am not blind. I am as the former slave trader and vile man
John Newton wrote after he was saved in the late 1700s. He
later went on to write the song Amazing Grace, which includes
these words:
"I once was lost, but now am found. Was blind, but now I see."
Until a person comes to Christ and is forgiven, they cannot
know what I'm talking about with regards to the new spirit
nature. I would not have believed it possible BEFORE it hap-
pened to me. In fact, I said that aloud many times after I
was saved.
It really is a new life.
It's like Optimus Prime in Transformers 2 receiving all the
new abilities from taking that SR-71 Decepticon's blue thing
into his own body. All of the new abilities which went along
with it came to him and he was able to know and do things he
wasn't able to before.
A pale comparison when placed alongside the restoration of a
man's soul and spirit from sin ... but it is something people
who have not yet experienced that transformation could relate
to:
Begins at 2:00 in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJs_peEATiU&t=2m
Prime was never the same after that. In later movie install-
ments we see him still able to fly.
It is the same with Christians who have their sin forgiven and
are born again. They are never the same again, and the new
spirit life communes with God's Holy Spirit directly, and He
affects and impacts and influences and guides us to move here
in this world, preparing us for eternity.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 24, 2019, 8:05:28 AM4/24/19
to
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 24, 2019, 8:34:27 AM4/24/19
to
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 4:36:11 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 22:51:32 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 2:25:55 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 20:25:57 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And Satan invented fossils, yes?
> > >
> > > You are good person, Leigh. He needed your attention
> > > and answered within 10 minutes how "lost cause" it
> > > felt to be without your "And Satan invented fossils, yes?".
> >
> > I believe you know this, but to be sure: The lost cause reference
> > is to the fact that he covers his ears and will not hear the truth.
> > He's Hell-bent on believing whatever he wants to believe without
> > regard to any facts or evidence which come his way.
>
> No, it describes yourself. You believe that master of this universe
> booted up some sort of multiplayer MineCraft game for eternal
> souls (actual us) somewhere within last 10 thousand years.
6,000 years ago approximately. We do not have the months of
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 22:51:32 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 2:25:55 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 20:25:57 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And Satan invented fossils, yes?
> > >
> > > You are good person, Leigh. He needed your attention
> > > and answered within 10 minutes how "lost cause" it
> > > felt to be without your "And Satan invented fossils, yes?".
> >
> > I believe you know this, but to be sure: The lost cause reference
> > is to the fact that he covers his ears and will not hear the truth.
> > He's Hell-bent on believing whatever he wants to believe without
> > regard to any facts or evidence which come his way.
>
> No, it describes yourself. You believe that master of this universe
> booted up some sort of multiplayer MineCraft game for eternal
> souls (actual us) somewhere within last 10 thousand years.
people's births or deaths recorded in the Bible, but if you
assume about half were before the mid-point, and half were
after, and coupled to some Biblically recorded events which
correlate with non-Biblical timeframes that are documented,
you arrive at a day that places creation approximately 4,003
years B.C., meaning that we are approximately 6,021 years old
now. If we consider that Jesus lived on the Earth for approx-
imately 33 years, that gives us approximately 12 years until
we would reach a time of 6,000 years minus Jesus' time here
on Earth.
No one knows the true day or year though. Based on the number
of months in a year, and the number of dates recorded in the
Bible, it's possible to be anywhere from the late 90s to the
early 2030s or thereabouts.
But regardless, it is about 6,000 years.
> The
> game contains unimaginably huge physical universe where even
> closest stars are outside of any hope to reach and everything in
> it (physics, astrophysics, paleontology, geology, genetics etc.)
> perfectly indicates that the whole thing is billions of years old.
on how big things could be? Logically you'd have a focus area,
but the game itself could go on to the limits of floating point
precision.
If God created this universe in a similar way, He could've in-
stantiated the universe as He saw fit, including making each
thing on the day of its creation, not because He had to do it
that way, but for some purpose in teaching us.
In any regard, no one knows the true nature of the universe,
not any Christians even, so we take on faith that what God has
told us is true.
> However all the souls have limited to live on one tiny rock of it
> in body of ape-like mammals
clear that man was made separate and distinct from the animals,
including the apes. The reason why you see similar patterns in
the life on Earth is because it stems from a common designer
(God) who made the animals one-by-one and brought them to Adam
to name. These were animal kinds, not every species. The di-
versificaiton into species was encoded into the root animals'
DNA, much the way breeders specialize various breeds by choosing
offspring with particular traits. Within each of the original
animals created by God were all the species that would later be
seen.
> for couple of decades in average
> (some for days, others for century). And the whole goal of
> this game is to torture all those souls who do not believe that
> story for eternity after they have played that game.
man free will. The enemy (Lucifer, later Satan -- which means
"accuser" because Satan accuses us day/night before God for all
our iniquity and sin) came in to tempt Adam and Eve, and man
acquiesced to Lucifer's prompting.
It was sin that destroyed man. God came to save man from the
punishment of that sin, and makes it available to everyone to-
day. People refuse to receive His free gift, and keep them-
sevles under judgment.
> BTW what
> about the hundreds of generations of American natives who
> lived before that book of truth was brought there six centuries
> ago? Hell bent not to know what they were obliged to believe?
> Will their souls be tortured or not? How you explain why maker
> of such universe has such communication disabilities?
tribes and tongues in Heaven, meaning some are saved from all
places with or without the message of Christ going forward by
man's lips.
In one way or another God has revealed Himself to all people.
He has prompted them by His own Holy Spirit internally, teaching
them the truth, giving them the opportunity to hear His guidance,
and then seeing whether or not they follow it.
Billy Graham addressed this point years ago and was widely mocked
for saying that Christ isn't the only way to Heaven. Those mock-
ers did not understand what he was saying. Billy was saying that
in the absence of a Christian outreach and teaching message, God
still doesn't just summarily abandon people. He reaches into
their heart and guides them and those that follow His voice are
saved.
I believe He also saves every child. He made a point of having
a special ministry calling to children in the gospels.
> > I've honestly never met anyone like him, except for five year olds
> > who cover their ears and repeat "blah blah blah" very loud to be
> > defiant and avoid the adult who's speaking to them.
>
> Look into mirror then. Everybody here have tried to talk with you
> but you just ignore all facts provided and also ignore all questions
> asked.
of God are. I used to be an atheist. The majority of the argu-
ments I hear from people I used to use against Christianity.
And until the change happened to me, and I WAS NOT looking for it,
but rather it took me completely by surprise, I would not have
ever believed it were possible.
I believed that because it's not a work of the flesh. The flesh
knows what the flesh knows, but what comes through Jesus is a new
thing. It is spirit and new spiritual life.
It's only when that happens that a person can discern and under-
stand the new life.
It's like if someone were blind. They can't know what it's like
to see until they get new eyes and are then able to see.
With spiritual matters, the flesh-only person cannot know what
it's like to be alive spiritually until they get new spirit life.
I'm not joking or exaggerating. It's why I ask each of you to go
to local churches and speak to born again Christians and listen
to their testimonies personally, and to not take my word for it.
Go and speak to multiple people and see for yourself if what I'm
telling you is true or not. Visit 15 churches. Speak to 50
Christians who state they are born again and hear what they have
to say. It's not just me.
> Instead you write long and boring judgement day descriptions
> back. Exactly Blah blah blah. Have you been there? So no, you
> can't know any of it. It is not something someone sane *could*
> somehow discuss.
you about the future day of judgment. It is God who has told all
of mankind through the Bible.
It is His wish that all would hear the message. In fact, the last
day will not come until all do hear the message (Matthew 24:14),
which is why there's such a world-wide movement to silence Christ-
ianity in this world today, and why President Obama and Hillary
Clinton used words like "Easter worshippers" rather than Christians
to describe the Sri Lanka Easter day terrorist massacre. They are
guided by demon spirits which will not acknowledge Christ as He
is, nor give His people credit they're due.
> Snipping that usual "If you do not believe that you will be
> tortured for eternity then you will be tortured for eternity"
> togma.
for all eternity" but rather right now, already, because of sin,
and because of you not having a spirit and your soul being under
condemnation because of sin, you are already judged, and your
soul will be cast into Hell for all eternity.
What Christ brought us, and what Christians teach, is the ONLY
way out of that fate. So when we say, "You must repent and
believe," it's not a "You're okay today, but when that last day
comes if you reject Him then you'll be in trouble" kind of
thing. We're teaching you that YOU ARE ALREADY in trouble, and
that this is your one way out.
And there are reasons why that is. It's not just because it's
one of the thousands of religions in the world. It's because
of who Jesus is, and what He did at the cross (going there in-
nocent before God, yet condemned by man, and therefore able to
take on the full weight of sin upon Himself at the cross and
die to it, thereby saving everyone from judgment by His atoning
death at the cross where He literally took away our sin and set
us free from judgment).
It is logical. It can be followed, even with the carnal mind.
> Everybody have got that message fully from *lot* of
> sources by now. It does only get less convincing when
> repeated ad nauseum instead of answering concrete
> questions about it.
God places that continuous reminder before you because for all
people who are saved at some point in their life (age 10, age
50, on their deathbed at 90), there was a time prior in their
life when they were not saved.
Nobody knows the day of a man's salvation, so we continue to
reach out and teach for those few who will be saved. It is
our hope in Him, and for our love of Him and mankind, that we
continue to teach despite the mocking and ridicule and hatred
we receive ongoing, because we recognize the source of that
hate is not men (or women), but rather the evil spirits that
are guiding everyone in sin in this world to their own blind
destruction.
Christians are the voice of reason stepping up to teach people
the way out of that end, but men love sin so much they will
not even give ear to the truth. But for those who will, they
will be saved, and it is for them that all Christians labor,
for those harvest few that will be saved.
I pray you're one of them. You are precious and valuable to
God and to man, and I would like to see you thriving in Heaven.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 24, 2019, 8:37:27 AM4/24/19
to
telling you. I do not have blind acceptance. The knowledge of my
salvation does not come from my flesh, but from the new born again
nature living inside of me which is spirit (read John 3 to under-
stand).
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3&version=KJV;NIV
If you were born of God you would hear my words and understand them,
but because you are not born of God you are unable to hear them, and
you do not understand them. You can only conclude that I have lost
my mind because the things I speak about are not possible for the
flesh, but only the spirit.
It is the same for all born again believers, for we have been called
out of this world's nature and understanding, and are given a new
nature, and a new understanding, which is why we move contrarywise
to all of the goings on of this world.
It is not because we are madmen, but because we are new men. Our
new spirit life changes us from within, and we move in new ways be-
cause of it.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 24, 2019, 8:40:07 AM4/24/19
to
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 7:55:50 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 23/04/2019 23:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > I agree that blind acceptance is irrational, but mine is not.
>
> LOL.
See my reply to guinn...@gmail.com.
> On 23/04/2019 23:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > I agree that blind acceptance is irrational, but mine is not.
>
> LOL.
> > It's not something those who have not experienced it can under-
> > stand, but go to local churches and ask to speak to born again
> > Christians. You'll hear their testimonies and you'll see how
> > they bear resemblance one to another.
>
> It's not something those who have not experienced it can under-
> stand, but go to local psychiatric wards and ask to speak to
> the mentally ill. You'll hear their delusions and you'll see how
> they bear resemblance one to another.
and true path, right? So you do not need to worry about anything
I have to say. You can mock me and espouse "And Satan invented
fossils, yes?" all day long knowing that your way is right and
true, right?
If so, walk in your faith and trust that your way is the right
way and be confident in your knowing the same, for you know deep
down inside that it will serve you well in the end ... right?
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble
Apr 24, 2019, 8:41:39 AM4/24/19
to
Mr Flibble
Apr 24, 2019, 8:49:45 AM4/24/19
to
Perhaps you are learning something by osmosis? If only you would accept
that your life is finite and there is no afterlife you might not waste
so many of your finite hours on delusion. BTW this is not an
opportunity for you to recite your prior life as an atheist for the Nth
time. Your faith is predicated on a dream and subsequent psychosis: you
have admitted as much.
And Satan invented fossils, yes?
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 24, 2019, 9:07:36 AM4/24/19
to
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:49:45 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 24/04/2019 13:39, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > You already have it figured out, Leigh. You are on the correct
> > and true path, right? So you do not need to worry about anything
> > I have to say. You can mock me and espouse "And Satan invented
> > fossils, yes?" all day long knowing that your way is right and
> > true, right?
> >
> > If so, walk in your faith and trust that your way is the right
> > way and be confident in your knowing the same, for you know deep
> > down inside that it will serve you well in the end ... right?
>
> That's right, our lives do have an end afterwhich there is nothingness.
Walk in it. Live your life as you see fit under that guidance.
> On 24/04/2019 13:39, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > You already have it figured out, Leigh. You are on the correct
> > and true path, right? So you do not need to worry about anything
> > I have to say. You can mock me and espouse "And Satan invented
> > fossils, yes?" all day long knowing that your way is right and
> > true, right?
> >
> > If so, walk in your faith and trust that your way is the right
> > way and be confident in your knowing the same, for you know deep
> > down inside that it will serve you well in the end ... right?
>
> That's right, our lives do have an end afterwhich there is nothingness.
The warning from God is this: You will reap what you sow by
adhering to your personal beliefs, rather than in the teachings
of God.
> Perhaps you are learning something by osmosis? If only you would accept
> that your life is finite and there is no afterlife you might not waste
> so many of your finite hours on delusion.
love one another, to be good to one another, to help one another,
and to believe that there is a foundational truth that exists
which is not subject to the multitude of lies that exists every-
where in this world except in God. And then I would die and you
and I would share the same fate of nothingness after death.
But if I am right ... if I'm right, it will end badly for you,
and for eternity.
It's worth some consideration.
> BTW this is not an
> opportunity for you to recite your prior life as an atheist for the Nth
> time. Your faith is predicated on a dream and subsequent psychosis: you
> have admitted as much.
it wasn't the dream that brought me to faith, but it was a witness
where I, as an atheist, saw His eyes and I, as an atheist, KNEW
from the core of my being deep-down in that instant that He was
God, and good, and right, and true, and everything that goes along
with it.
God guided Joseph and Mary when Jesus was still in the womb by
sending Joseph dreams to leave his country, and to later return.
God guides us in ways that are unlike the ways of the world.
> And Satan invented fossils, yes?
part in what you're trying to say to me here with this sentence.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble
Apr 24, 2019, 9:11:22 AM4/24/19
to
Rick C. Hodgin
Apr 24, 2019, 9:29:18 AM4/24/19
to
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:11:22 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> And Satan invented fossils, yes?
I write custom replies to you, Leigh. I do so because I care
> And Satan invented fossils, yes?
about you and want you to know the truth.
God cares about you more than I do, by the way. His love for
you was demonstrated at the cross.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble
Apr 24, 2019, 9:33:56 AM4/24/19
to
Ian Collins
Apr 24, 2019, 6:20:40 PM4/24/19
to
On 25/04/2019 00:04, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:00:56 AM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 24/04/2019 10:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> Bring any point forward and we'll investigate it together.
>>
>> That's already been tried, examples being fossils and debunked case of
>> blood in fossil dinosaur bones.
>
> What points are you referring to?
Go back tough some of your previous claims.
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:00:56 AM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 24/04/2019 10:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> Bring any point forward and we'll investigate it together.
>>
>> That's already been tried, examples being fossils and debunked case of
>> blood in fossil dinosaur bones.
>
> What points are you referring to?
> You do realize there is a disinformation network at work within
> the scientific community to make legitimate findings and reports
> be deemed something else, and therefore "explained away."
>
> Falseness has that luxury. It can report on data using lies and
> fabrications. Truth cannot.
believe that the scientific community, tens of thousands of individuals
from diverse political and religious backgrounds, are conspiring against
your little clique?
> Truth always wins in the end.
>>>> It is irrationality and blind acceptance such as yours that breads the
>>>> kind of extremism leads to events like the abomination that recently
>>>> afflicted my city. Fortunately we are an open minded society who came
>>>> together to reject ignorance and embrace all of our brother and sisters.
>>>
>>> I agree that blind acceptance is irrational, but mine is not.
>>>
>>> There's a real change that takes place when you're born again.
>>
>> A change that appears to blind you to the truth, common with cults.
>
> Cults often have blindness, there is no doubt.
>
> I am not blind.
--
Ian.
0 new messages