Has religion served its purpose?

@josephw said
Did you read my post on page 32, 8th from the top?

Yes it’s says you’re a dishonest weasel who thinks he’s a tough guy.

Bang on I reckon SecondSon.

@josephw said
I suppose it does, but I never would have thunk it.

Seems there's a no sum gain though.

As I say, I've played Secondson who was a reasonable chess player. I do not recognise his play in the two quick losses against you. The fact that you now claim he is some kind of relative merely compounds the issue.

@divegeester said
I don’t think any of it is literal.

So which bits do you think are or aren’t literal?

On what bases do you come up with that? You believe everything John wrote about in his gospel and his letters were metaphoric and completely not literal as well? You treat everything else he wrote that way or just this one book you happen to dislike because it shows you clearly you and scripture disagree, along with the rest of the Bible? This something you do with all the text you don’t like?

You realize even metaphoric truths are based on reality?

@kellyjay said
On what bases do you come up with that?

It’s my opinion.

On what basis do you come up with your interpretation that some of Revelation is literal and some is not?

@divegeester said
It’s my opinion.

On what basis do you come up with your interpretation that some of Revelation is literal and some is not?

Well, your opinion over the Word, that about sums it up, didn't you also say you don't care what is shared with you from scripture your mind is made up, or something along those lines? That was you wasn't it?

I try to look at it in context, seeing which could be and isn't as I look at it. I don't accept it is all one giant metaphor, and even if I did, I could not dismiss what was said in it telling us how awful the 2nd death is going to be.

It isn't just Revelation you have issues with; there are several references to punishment that don't just go away if you ignore the book of Revelation, which by the way, has blessings and curses associated with it for those that add to or take away from that book. Do you believe every reference to Hell in the Bible is all metaphors, and if you do, what is it that they are telling us about Hell even as a metaphor?

@kellyjay said

I try to look at it in context, seeing which could be and isn't as I look at it.

I also look at context, seeing which could be and isn’t as I look at it.

What else you got to support your personal opinion on what is and isn’t literal in Revelation…Anything different to me?

@divegeester said
I also look at context, seeing which could be and isn’t as I look at it.

What else you got to support your personal opinion on what is and isn’t literal in Revelation…Anything different to me?

I'd say the most significant difference between your views on this matter and mine is mine are not defined by what I like and dislike. Mine are not molded by my tastes on what I think should and shouldn't be acceptable; mine are not structured because I dislike the idea of Hell, where you bragged about it elsewhere on how you made scripture acceptable to you, instead of you conforming to scripture.

This is more than likely your objection to Jesus being God as well, as just a created being, you can make Him into whatever you want, while as God, not so much.

@kellyjay said
I'd say the most significant difference between your views on this matter and mine is mine are not defined by what I like and dislike.

Rather than a "like and dislike" preference being at work here, is it not a case of a moral compass being at work? Doesn't claiming that an infinite punishment for a finite "crime" is somehow morally coherent [by using circular logic] do damage to your moral compass?

@kellyjay said
Well, your opinion over the Word, that about sums it up.

Surely it's your opinion versus his opinion? Unless you are saying that your opinion is not an opinion at all and is, instead, "the Word"?

@kellyjay said
I'd say the most significant difference between your views on this matter and mine is mine are not defined by what I like and dislike. Mine are not molded by my tastes on what I think should and shouldn't be acceptable; mine are not structured because I dislike the idea of Hell, where you bragged about it elsewhere on how you made scripture acceptable to you, instead of you conforming to scripture.

I’m well aware that you don’t like “my views” and they differ from “your views”, but I didn’t ask you to explain that. Did I?

What I asked you was, what differences you had in how you formulated your decisions on what is and what isn’t literal in the book of Revelation from how I have decided what is and what isn’t literal. Unfortunately, and as usual, you are avoiding that question.

How do you decide what is, or what isn’t literal in the book of Revelation? Are you going to answer that question?

@fmf said
Surely it's your opinion versus his opinion? Unless you are saying that your opinion is not an opinion at all and is, instead, "the Word"?

KellyJay seems to be incapable of explaining the process of how his beliefs about the literal nature of the book of Revelation are formed, and how his process differs from how I form my beliefs.

I have already said that my beliefs are my opinions on what the text means within the wider context of my understanding of the wider biblical scripture.

KellyJay is of course reluctant to admit that his beliefs are in fact also JUST his opinions which are based on his understanding of the wider biblical scriptures. I’m sure he will be wanting to tell me that he has some deeper spiritual insight which I don’t have. But I doubt he will have the affront to say so, and so will probably instead again appeal to him not liking certain doctrines (such as eternal suffering) but asset that he believes them anyway because it’s in the text.

Which is basically saying “what I read is X and therefore I believe Y, and because my interpretation of X is infallible, therefore Y is fact”

@fmf said
Rather than a "like and dislike" preference being at work here, is it not a case of a moral compass being at work? Doesn't claiming that an infinite punishment for a finite "crime" is somehow morally coherent [by using circular logic] do damage to your moral compass?

Exactly how do you figure what is in play is only a finite crime? We are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, born again, and once that happens, our sanctification is ongoing. So we end up on judgment day standing before God in our glorified bodies; those who have not undergone that process, have not surrendered to the Lamb for His Lordship will be standing there in their sins, sinners condemned by a Holy God.

This last weekend, I was at a wake; an older gentleman part of our local church had passed away. We had talked, but I was closer to his daughter and granddaughter's families. We are a very little fellowship; we meet in a barn, not a church building, so you know the people who go. I'm sitting listening to this 85-year-old's life story being told; he and his wife had fostered over 500 kids, they had taken in several people through the years.

A guest pastor came in to give his eulogy; part of the guest pastor's story was when his mom was pregnant with him, his dad was a drinker, and threatened to kill his mom while he was inside of her and his two siblings. His mom called this guy's family; they drove across a couple of states, picked them all up, and they lived with them as part of their family for years after that.

My point in this story is I knew this guy as an older gentleman who moved kind of slow with a smile on his face; it was next to nothing compared to who this guy was as his story was told, he was like an iceberg, we only see a sliver of time, that man was so much more.

We are talking about an eternal Kingdom whose main commandments are to love God with all of our hearts and love each other; those that shun this Kingdom for anything else, for any other thing, are not worthy of it because they have forsaken the grace that cost the Son of God immensely becoming sin in our place, that is a crime against a Holy God not something of little consequence.

@kellyjay said
Exactly how do you figure what is in play is only a finite crime?

How long is each disbelieving human's life? It's a finite period of time, is it not?

@kellyjay said
We are talking about an eternal Kingdom whose main commandments are to love God with all of our hearts and love each other; those that shun this Kingdom for anything else, for any other thing, are not worthy of it because they have forsaken the grace that cost the Son of God immensely becoming sin in our place, that is a crime against a Holy God not something of little consequence.

So, if someone was a non-believer for, say, 70 years, what would be the moral justification and purpose of still burning him with flames as a punishment 3 billion years from now, for example? And what would the moral justification for still doing it to him in 30 billion years from now? And then for eternity after that?

@fmf said
How long is each disbelieving human's life? It's a finite period of time, is it not?

When we look at things we are making, they either can do what is required of them or not. We get a choice to be what we were designed to be, those that belong to a Kingdom where love is the prime commandment, nothing short of that will be acceptable. We will be judged by what we do, we will also be acknowledged by who we know, we will be judged by the judgment we brought upon others to be brought upon ourselves, and we may hear the words, depart from me I never knew you. We choose; this is the acceptable day to choose; none of us are promised tomorrow, we were bought with a very high price, what is to become of those who think so little of that?

1 Corinthians 6:20
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Hebrews 2
For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?