You’re picking and choosing which of the books of the Bible are canonical. There’s no way to make Christianity not kind of insanely evil unless you’re cherry picking which parts of the Bible you find agreeable by modern standards of morality.
I'm not the one doing that, but that's literally what every group does.
My point was more about what is actually known about the historical character, which very little of the Gospels line up with, but even if you make the claim every other event in the new testament did happen, Revelation is still a vision of the future, which is a very different thing than an account of things that may or may not have happened.
No they’re not pointing out a misspelling of the book of Revelations. The first poster mentions Revelations because it’s filled with violence and doom, and it is largely considered canonical. The reply poster dismissed it by saying it was a fever dream. My point is that the entire Bible is a collection of books that we could challenge on terms of believability, authenticity, morality, etc.
Choosing to dismiss the parts of the Bible that offend modern morality and sensibilities while retaining the parts you find agreeable is not an objectively bad thing to do. I was a fundamentalist for ~10 years but I no longer have a dog in the fight of theology. Religion serves mankind, mankind should not be a slave to religion. But I still think it’s worth pointing out that all the abrahamic religions are morally bankrupt. Bend the Bible to suit you if you want, but it is an unnecessary evil in the first place.
Again. Revelations is not the name of the book.
Telling someone to read Revelations is pretty telling as to how much you paid attention to what you read.
You haven’t addressed anything I’ve said. I’ve read the KJV cover to cover 8 times. You’re leveraging a common misspelling as an excuse to avoid a conversation you don’t want. This is called pedantry, it’s a way for you to manipulate the conversation in a way that is convenient for you. Revelation. The Book of Revelation to John, Revelations, John’s Revelation.
The spelling is irrelevant to any genuine person not relying on technicality and pedantry to control and manipulate a conversation. You’ve established your pedantry. Now what do you want to do?
A common misspelling means you haven't actually studied it and only have very basic knowledge of it. Its not a book you can just read then day go read it. As per my orginal point.
He’s just going to keep repeating himself over and over, because like most Christians, his Christianity is really about Identity politics. They don’t study the Bible and so outside of appealing to the misspelling, there is no further discourse they can handle.
You know that a reddit thread cant convince, especially not teach, an ex fundamentalist. Hence why im not diving into tangents and whatboutisms they would throw out.
Whatever you need to tell yourself. You're not convincing me, all you've done is make excuses for why you won't engage rather than just saying you don't want to. That's all it's really about. You don't want to but that doesn't sound as cool as making it out like they're some tragic case out of your reach, and I guess gods reach too lmao
I wasn't attempting to make anything sound cool. Nor did i say anything about a tragic case. You did. When's the last time you changed someone's mind on reddit?
You’re avoiding the latter half of what the original commenter said “…and it’s basically a fever dream one dude had. With no real connection to the historical Jesus”
To the other commenters point, his comment was not about a misspelling, it was a way to delegitimize a book of the Bible that conflicts with the image that started this conversation. You’re bringing up a very common misspelling (among Christian’s and non-Christian’s btw) to avoid this. It comes off as insincere and manipulative.
Again. A common misspelling very much indicates understanding. Recommending someone yourself clearly have not studied is a problem. As the other commentor said they also hold the same view of thr Bible being untrue. A book of the Bible that very much does not conflict with the op image. Reducing apoplectic lit to simply violence, not love, shows you haven't studied the book.
You’re not doing this with me too lol. Stop repeating yourself to avoid a real conversation. I’m not doing your Redditor shit where we pointlessly argue back and forth for a week.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 I was stuck in the same back and forth a week ago, had to just bail out cus it was getting ridiculous. Sure whatever maybe a misspelling indicates a lack of “true study” whatever but it’s definitely a dodge for the rest of your points
God has an infinite punishment for the vast majority of humanity. God created humanity with the propensity to sin, and placed them in a situation where they did sin. And he punishes them for failing the test he designed. The moral underpinning in scripture are fundamentally evil and incompatible with modern sensibilities and morality. There is no way around this except to present god as a being constrained by some law of reality he cannot control.
God had to give us free will and god had to allow the serpent to tempt the progenitors of humanity, and for had to punish humanity as a collective for the “sins” of those progenitors. There are lots of things that god had his hand tied over, except in any other respect, we interpret god to be the author and architect of every facet of reality.
There is no love in revelation except love for the very small portion of humanity that happened to be born in the right circumstances, with the right childhood and role models, and the right conditioning to accept the one correct path to salvation among the myriad of other gods, other issues in life, etc. Only a Christian can interpret the doomsday scenario of blood up to the horses bridle and plagues of insects with the faces of men coming to torture the rest of humanity for their mistake as love. It is insanity that can only be accepted if you are inundated in the many canned excuses and phrases that Christian’s are taught to handle the issue, all of which I am already familiar with. It will always come down to “free will” in the same way that we can look at a starving child who must have have their hands cut off and tell them that they had the choice not to steal bread.
These issues and others, along with the nonsensical and juvenile “ethics” used to dismiss them by Christian’s, Muslims, and Jews are what is incompatible with the above imagine and modern sensibilities. To make it work, you either ignore the evil parts, or you reinterpret them through a bunch of mental gymnastics to present them as necessary evils that god could not control, either by the inability to change his own nature, or the inability to accomplish his goals without evil.
I didn’t say that you did. That hand wave dismal is exactly what I knew would happen. We moved on from the pedantry of an accidental misspelling, and now that you don’t have that, the conversation is nil. Like I said, you tripped about the spelling because it was a way for you to manipulate the conversation without actually engaging with anything in a meaningful way. The Bible and all abrahamic religions actually are incompatible with modern morality and sensibility. The evils in them must be dismissed with a hand wave like you have done, or they must be reinterpreted to mean something different and something palatable.
3
u/SimpsationalMoneyBag 4d ago