(May 23, 2012 at 6:29 am)gringoperry Wrote: To give a bit more reasoning as to why I choose to debate this way; I have often observed Christians using loaded questions, in order to make the person answering look as though they are stupid. Furthermore, I don't generally debate scripture anymore for the very reasons you have given - I don't have enough knowledge on the subject. When I do; which I assure you is something this is guaranteed to happen, I will be happy to debate with you on a level playing field.

ALTER2EGO -to- GRINGO PERRY:
Unfortunately, I've met people like that at other forums, so I sympathize with your position. But I can assure you that my questions are not loaded. I genuinely want to understand your viewpoint so that I can help you see for yourself what the Bible actually teaches.

If I merely tell someone the hellfire doctrine is false, they will view it as a personal opinion coming from me. Later on, someone else might tell them the hellfire teaching is indeed a Bible teaching, and they won't know who to believe. That's why I present people with viewpoint questions—along with the scriptures—to force them to apply logic to their Bible reading. I'm trying to get people to "discover" the answer so they cannot be swayed by misinformation.

Alter2Ego, are you saying that all references to hellfire in the bible are analogous or actually mean something else?

If yes, where does it say in the bible that you should do this?

If no, why do you choose the specific ones you do as meaning something else?

(May 23, 2012 at 6:29 am)gringoperry Wrote: So here's where I'm at. On this very thread there are Christians who seem to be in disagreement over both the meaning and context of your questions. So, I do not think it is unreasonable for me, a non-Christian, to ask for clarification, when your own brethren don't seem to know what you're driving at. As for misleading religions. That is the problem I have with all religions. There are people who are simply incapable of understanding translations and context, due to a number of factors. These people, through no fault of their own, will hypothetically end up following the wrong path. In many cases, by trying to be faithful, they will fall short of the grace of God. That, to me, does not make a shred of sense.

ALTER2EGO -to- GRINGO PERRY:
Every person who is not mentally challenged is capable of understanding the scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible. The main reason why people don't understand the scriptures is because they routinely ignore the context—the surrounding words, chapters, and verses. That, along with preconceived ideas that they learned from false religious "leaders" keeps them in their own self-imposed box.

During my discussions with people at other websites, even after I showed them the scriptural context and that it contradicts what they believe, they persisted in arguing for the false belief system because they were unwilling to admit they've been misled in the belief system for years. They refused to be corrected by the scriptures. They just would not accept they've been wrong for years. It's called foolish pride.

fna;sdhf[apoiunfpaubg[asd[gapdfbaifdhaefha[vubaifhadfh

Urg.

(May 23, 2012 at 12:00 pm)Insanity x Wrote: When I see all this loved up bible nonsense it makes me want to go quote some of the more interesting parts of the bible. You know like "I [Jesus] will kill her children with death." 2:23 Revelations

Cherry picker.

(May 23, 2012 at 12:00 pm)Insanity x Wrote: When I see all this loved up bible nonsense it makes me want to go quote some of the more interesting parts of the bible. You know like "I [Jesus] will kill her children with death." 2:23 Revelations

ALTER2EGO -to- INSANITY X:
The book of Revelation uses mostly figurative language. If you'd bothered to read Revelation 1:1, you would have realized that.

"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and PRESENTED IT IN SIGNS through him to his slave John," (Revelation 1:1)


In other words, Revelation 2:23 is not talking about a literal woman named Jezebel or her literal children. Jezebel was an evil queen from the Old Testament who existed many centuries prior to the writing of the book of Revelation. Jezebel married Ahab, the Israelite king of Judah, and turned him onto Baal worship. (You can read this at 1 Kings 16:29-33).

Because of the influence of the literal Jezebel, she caused Baal worship to become rampant among Jehovah's people. So the use of her name at Revelation 2:20 is intended to help people reflect on what she symbolized in real life: an unrepentant and evil woman who represented false religion.

"{20} 'Nevertheless, I do hold this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and misleads my slaves to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols. {21} And I gave her time to repent, but she is not willing to repent of her fornication.' " (Revelation 2:20-21)


By the time we read Revelation 2:23, which you quoted, we should understand that it's talking about false religious leaders ("Jezebel") and their followers (symbolize as "Jezebel's children"). And since the woman Jezebel and her children are not literal people at Revelation 2:23 but are instead symbolic of false religious leaders and their followers, likewise, the mentioning at verse 23 that "I will kill her children with death" is not with reference to literal children but rather to the destruction of all those who refuse to separate themselves from false religious teachings.

Quote:(You can read this at 1 Kings 16:29-33).

Look in the fiction section of your library.

(May 23, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:(You can read this at 1 Kings 16:29-33).

Look in the fiction section of your library.

Actually that is history. It is taken from the Annals of the Kings of Judah.

(May 23, 2012 at 3:23 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: They refused to be corrected by the scriptures.

Care to comment on the extensive scriptural references I provided and how they might influence or supplement your interpretation of biblical symbols?

Quote:Actually that is history. It is taken from the Annals of the Kings of Judah.

Which is where?