The god who burns people alive for eternity

@divegeester said
You said Revelation contains allegories.

So it’s not literal.

Game over.

@philokalia said
Allegories have meaning, right.

What is meant by the passages that I have just recently shared?

Heaven, hell, the Resurrection, the condemnation of some and elevation of others show that there is a clear dichotomy, right.

Hell is relentlessly referred to in the new testament. If all of them are allegorical, what does it mean?

@sonship said
@divegeester

Revelation 1:1 says things are going to be made known to the church by signs.

Is this the first time I ever said this?
Have I ever denied it?

The answer to the first question is - No. I've pointed to 1:1 before.

The answer to the second question is - No. I never denied a lake of fire is to be taken literally.

I did sa ...[text shortened]... h, should be sought.
The same applies to the lake of fire - the second death - the Gehenna of fire.

@philokalia said
Allegories have meaning, right.
What is meant by the passages that I have just recently shared?
Heaven, hell, the Resurrection, the condemnation of some and elevation of others show that there is a clear dichotomy, right.
Hell is relentlessly referred to in the new testament. If all of them are allegorical, what does it mean?

@kellyjay said
I believe what you will see is doctrine of the gaps, much like those discussing the beginning of all things. "I have no idea what it means or how it started, I just know what it says in scriptural text isn't correct." So there are gaps of the unknown only because they don't believe the text means what it says in the context its in.

@divegeester said
I’m content that one of my vehement detractors here who has accused me of awful things, including heresy, because of my beliefs about the book of Revelation, has admitted publicly that the book contains allegories and is therefore not to be considered as literal.

@Philokalia

Divegeester says

I’m content that one of my vehement detractors here who has accused me of awful things, including heresy, because of my beliefs about the book of Revelation, has admitted publicly that the book contains allegories and is therefore not to be considered as literal.

I’m content that one of my vehement detractors here who has accused me of awful things, including heresy, because of my beliefs about the book of Revelation, has admitted publicly that the book contains allegories and is therefore not to be considered as literal.

" ... and He made it known by signs, sending it by His angel to His slave John."

I have never actually seen him justify his position in regards to what the Bible says so there is no way for me to be convinced of the arguments he brings up here.

It's like we have only seen half of the rationale.

Dive, if you want to save me from a terrible, false doctrine that is hostile and potentially turns other people away from Christ, you should put some effort into explaining yourself.

But I guess, if I am you, and I do not believe in hell... What is the point? You aren't saving anyone from anything, right?

@divegeester said
I’m content that one of my vehement detractors here who has accused me of awful things, including heresy, because of my beliefs about the book of Revelation, has admitted publicly that the book contains allegories and is therefore not to be considered as literal.

@suzianne said
"Contains allegories" and "not to be considered as literal" are not necessarily the same thing.

I maintain that it is a matter of degree.

@KellyJay

I believe what you will see is doctrine of the gaps, much like those discussing the beginning of all things. "I have no idea what it means or how it started, I just know what it says in scriptural text isn't correct." So there are gaps of the unknown only because they don't believe the text means what it says in the context its in.

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; But when that which is complete comes, that which is in part will be rendered useless ...

For now we see in a mirror obscurely, but at that time face to face; now I know in part, but at that time I will fully know even as also I was fully known." (See 1 Cor. 13:9,10, 12)

So there are gaps of the unknown only because they don't believe the text means what it says in the context its in.

@KellyJay

The thing that should be taken into account regardless of how one thinks of any text is that language matters, even an allegory is spoken in scripture with intent and should never be ignored. Jesus spoke to many about the Kingdom of God, and He didn't always talk about it in literal terms. The truths of it were still conveyed in what He said. Scriptures are filled with all manner of things from poems, history, visions, dreams, and prophetic messages! All of these, regardless of style and content matter, all of which were written for a point. A dream or vision about a dragon doesn't mean a dragon is real, but the dream or vision about one was. Casting aside scripture because someone thinks it isn't real is a dangerous thing, it is all real in the context it is being presented in, a dream about something is real though the events in the dream are not. It is spoken about in the Word of God because we need to hear about it, not so we can cast it aside as meaningless.

@philokalia said
So you are content with a completely unsubstantiated position that you are unwilling to defend.
Really, you need to put forward a coherent interpretation of these passages and seek to understand this.
I do not think that you will change on this and I will just leave it at that.
I'm done.

@sonship said
@KellyJay
[quote] The thing that should be taken into account regardless of how one thinks of any text is that language matters, even an allegory is spoken in scripture with intent and should never be ignored. Jesus spoke to many about the Kingdom of God, and He didn't always talk about it in literal terms. The truths of it were still conveyed in what He said. Scriptures are ...[text shortened]... re are parables in Matthew. That doesn't mean everything in Matthew is not historical.