It also seems these days that so-called "Christians" don't even bother to cite scripture anymore. They just make a bunch of statements about God without any scriptural backing whatsoever.

Then a minute later, another "Christian" comes along saying something completely different. With equal conviction.

The Christian God has been turned into a puppet. If it wasn't so already.

Never met anyone with the same viewpoint tho.

That's because it's not a viewpoint held by real Christians.

Well, to be fair: given that the Bible is a collection of translations of translations, etc... pretty much everything is a "version".

My point here is that if the meaning of a single ambiguous word in the whole translation chain can change the entire meaning of one of the most important sections of the Bible, then how seriously can we take the Bible in the first place?

If it's a guide to something, then to what exactly? Our pre-conceived notions perhaps? Then the Bible is nothing more than an enabler for the intellectually lazy.

Unfortunately, the so-called "Christians" seem to prefer persecuting the messenger... typical of false wannabee Christians.

I think we're in general agreement though :-)

My comment wasn't aimed at him.

If you hadn't been so quick to try to insult me, you would have found that out for yourself.

But hey, feel free to persecute me for telling the truth.

Unless you're posting under different names, my comment wasn't aimed at you.

In fact, I thought your comment was pretty good.

Sorry for any confusion.

Not all churches are the same. Not all Christians are the same. And not all Christians are Christians.

I appreciate that you took the time to write all the things you wrote, but.... where's the scripture? Or references that I can check for myself?

You're telling me to read the Bible. Well, I did. The KJV 1611 Bible to be exact. And I came to the conclusion that if people inject their own opinions, then the Bible is essentially worthless.

Christian A can say X about Christianity.
Christian B says !X about Christianity.

Which one shall I believe?

Obviously, I'll believe the one whose claims can be verified using scripture.

So how does "over 6 figures" minus "low 90's" equal $8k? You can't be much over 6 figures then.

Also: it's only reasonable that someone with 0 years of experience gets lower pay than someone with several years. The difference will be smaller by the year.

If $8k *annually* counts as a "significant" amount, then you're not making much...

"...you're pretty much saying that the Bible is BS"

I address the logical ramifications of his reasoning. If you can go either way with a verse depending on what *you* want it to mean, then the Bible is nothing more than an sort-of inspirational book.

"Why are you so offended by the Bible that you have to dismiss it so?"
Logical inference: why would he dismiss the Bible? What offends him?

"an you or can you not back up your claim with scripture?"....

Valid question: he has indeed failed to produce a single line of scripture. Instead, he picked a single meaning from the dictionary. Certainly, a rather intellectually limited defense, wouldn't you agree?

I am not really a Bible person, but it looks like he 'backed up' himself pretty well in the initial post.

So you admit that you're not knowledgeable, yet you wish to express your *opinion* ? Your opinion isn't worth more than *verifiable* facts, sorry.

I have been thinking of joining a church to learn about god, but sure don't want to be in one that produces petulant fundies like you.

Right. So instead of addressing the argument, you call me a "petulant fundie". Very mature of you, friend.

See that even though you're pretty negative with me, I still take the effort of actually addressing your points instead of just calling you names? That's what mature and intelligent people do, my friend.

And FYI: I don't mean the word "friend" sarcastically. Stop being so negative.

Anyhow the definition (and the existance) of hell is disputed among the denominations, so it would be better to skip it entirely, otherwise this is going to be a long and worthless debate.

Why? It's *clearly* described in the Bible as a lake of fire. It's where unbelievers, adulterers, etc go. There are lots of specifics on what it's like, who will go there and why.

Of course, the whole concept of Hell is pretty barbaric. It's one of those "hard parts" that some "Christians" like to pretend doesn't exist.

But the joke is on them: the more they go around claiming Hell doesn't exist, the higher the chance they'll find out themselves.

So you put all that effort into finding a Bible that's not altered...... only to butcher it yourself??

Looks like we can extend Godwin's law with comparing people to Glenn Beck :-)

You seem awfully intent on dodging the issue. All you're doing is trying to distract me with a red herring.

I ask again: can you or can you not back up your claim with scripture?

to signify means to convey by signs

Wait, so you're saying that whether or not we take the *opposite* of what's written in those chapters depends on the interpretation of a single word? Talk about convenience! This absurdity is obviously false. Simply look at the very next verse:

Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

If we look at other translations:
NIV/ISV: "He made it known by..."
NLT/ESV: "sent an angel to present this revelation"
NASB: "sent and communicated it"
GWT: "He sent this revelation through his angel..."
ASV: "he sent and made it clear by his angel"

Etcetera, etcetera.

Obviously, the writers did not intend a symbolic interpretation, otherwise they would have made this abundantly clear. It is obvious that neither the writers, nor the translators had a symbolic interpretation in mind.

The writer isn't actually confused.

Then he's misinformed, as are you: Jesus did not go to Hell. See the original text and the original meaning(s) of the word used. Also look up Hades: it's not a singular entity.

As others here have already pointed out, the location of the mark could itself be symbolic.

Could be or not be. Why not go with what's actually *written* there instead of imagining things. Besides, the subject of private interpretation has already been addressed:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

But I guess you'll argue that this passage was symbolic as well.......

Wait, are you comparing me to a paranoid loon like Glenn Beck because.... I backed up my claim using a Bible quote?

Why are you so offended by the Bible that you have to dismiss it so?

No: the Bible clearly specifies the location of the mark. It's the right hand or forehead.

If you say "no no, they will NOT receive a mark", then you're pretty much saying that the Bible is BS: you can take the opposite meaning whenever it suits you.

Private interpretation is forbidden per 2 Peter 1:20-21:

1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If you're just going to give your own spin to it, why bother reading the thing at all?

I can sum up *your* Bible right here:

"Your intuition, opinions and feelings of guilt are 100% backed up by the Creator of the Universe, regardless of whatever anyone else says."