Originally posted by Proper KnobYou can cry about it all you like, if you are willing to discuss the matter objectively then so am I but this propensity for tabloid journalism, its just not my bag man!
You are uninterested in giving a personal perspective on the killing of women and children and the acts of genocide, sorry........'judicial executions' as sanctioned by your God figure? Fair enough, but it's pitiful really. Each to their own I guess, keep your head plonked in the sand.............or is that arse?! 🙂
-Removed-Just out of curiosity, how would one go about reinterpreting this scripture in order to dance around the notion of anyone going to the lake of fire?
…13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've never discussed anything objectively in these forums, you spout rhetoric and nothing else.
You can cry about it all you like, if you are willing to discuss the matter objectively then so am I but this propensity for tabloid journalism, its just not my bag man!
-Removed-I told you I did not believe that the lake of fire was literal. What it represents is irrelevant.
You could at least offer some hint or explanation of what you think it represents, because simply saying it's a metaphor is not enough. Calling the lake of fire a metaphor because it doesn't appeal to you or seem right is not a persuasive argument... it's meaningless unless you are able illustrate what you believe the lake of fire represents.
Metaphors (in the Bible) are easily distinguishable from statements meant to be taken literally. Symbolism more often than not come with explanations, either within the same text or elsewhere in the Bible. For example, prophesies alluding to horns and beasts (and mountains) refer to nations and kingdoms, and it's commonly understood that the word "horn" denotes strength, power and dominion.
If the lake of fire is not literal then what it represents is relevant, but what can a 'metaphorical' lake of fire represent other than the image of a consuming fire?
-Removed-One page 1 you said:
I'm not going to do anything
other than... ?
I just find asking these direct questions is helping me better understand the mind of mainstream contemporary Christianity.
This is an odd statement, because 'mainstream contemporary Christianity' has been gradually moving away from Biblical teaching. Many Christians today have adjusted their beliefs to come more in line with and accommodate secular thinking.
I find your concept of the Biblical God to be disgustingly abhorrent. I guess that means I'm not a Christian doesn't it.
Most real Christians don't find the Biblical God to be disgustingly abhorrent, so it appears you may have guessed right.
chino = christian in name only
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIt's a time reference. It has to do with a collection of nations (kingdoms) before he appears on the world stage. There are several time references (not just in Revelations) pointing to when he will appear... Israel becoming established again as a sovereign nation is one such time reference.
How will the symbolism of 7 heads, 10 horns and 10 crowns assist you in recognizing him?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtgee thats bitter - I am prepared to discuss the Biblical perspective objectively and yet all others seem intent on reducing the argument to a personal level, i see that you have joined the charade - how disappointing.
You've never discussed anything objectively in these forums, you spout rhetoric and nothing else.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFirstly, I'm not crying about anything. What a silly thing to say. Secondly, if you think questions about how you reconcile the more disturbing and troubling sections of the Bible with your faith is 'tabloid journalism' then so be it. I think that says a lot more about you than it does me.
You can cry about it all you like, if you are willing to discuss the matter objectively then so am I but this propensity for tabloid journalism, its just not my bag man!
I have posted numerous objective questions about genocide/judicial executions as described in the Bilbe, most of which you have chosen to ignore. To claim I am to unwilling to discuss the matter objectively is utter nonsense. How about you answer the series of questions you have so far avoided in this thread? Or is that not your bag man?!
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhy dont you tie me to a chair and shine a light in my face, maybe then 'you'll be able to make me talk'. As far as I am concerned I have expounded on the biblical perspective not only why God has the right to take life (by virtue of his being the originator of life and the universal sovereign) but have also pointed out that the Amekalities were judicially executed because they engaged in an act of warfare by attacking the Israelites in an unprovoked attack and yet despite this you continue to whinge on when I have made the perspective crystal clear and continue to make personal references despite being asked to desist on several occasions. You are correct it does say more about me than it does about you. I remain detached and objective you remain tabloid and personal.
Firstly, I'm not crying about anything. What a silly thing to say. Secondly, if you think questions about how you reconcile the more disturbing and troubling sections of the Bible with your faith is 'tabloid journalism' then so be it. I think that says a lot more about you than it does me.
I have posted numerous objective questions about genocide/jud ...[text shortened]... er the series of questions you have so far avoided in this thread? Or is that not your bag man?!