Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
OBW, I don't like to respond to you. Every reply from me generates a Straw-man from you, or you read something into a message that isn't there.
Here's the message: Christians live by faith, looking to those who have gone before for encouragement for the future. This would seem to be a message that could be taken at face value. I can't even post some verses from the Bible without your questioning my intent.
Further, I don't know how to respond to a group of Christians on a Christian website, who are questioning the inclusion of the book of the Revelation in the Bible, saying John was on an LSD trip when he wrote it. This is beyond the pale. You have to start somewhere, and for Christians, the Bible is pretty near the top. Hebrews 11 is the best I can do.
It should be obvious by now that all people don't think the same way.
Could you not just ask "Nell, what do you mean by this...?"
Nell
|
Sorry you don't like the way I ask a question.
First, I'm not sure where he "strawman" complaint came from since I could not conclude what your point was. I think I need to be misrepresenting your point, or rather changing it into something else so that I can defeat it for it to be a strawman. Asking what is the point is for the purpose of avoiding a strawman.
But it would seem by the variety of answers from others that the answer to my question was not obvious. In fact, you didn't simply respond to my original post to you, but rather to my response to others providing their variety of answers (presumably based on their guess about your meaning).
I went through what I did so that it would not be seen as simply some troublesome request to post more, or an irrational request. I honestly believe that where the meaning is obvious, there is no need for more comment. But the meaning was not obvious, so I asked for more.
When you respond with "it should be obvious by now that all people don't think the same way" that should have provided your own reasons for being willing to respond. We don't all think the same way. You had something in mind when you posted and it was obvious to you. But not to me. And it would appear by he variety of responses by others that it was not to them either.
I was not being snippy. I was not creating a strawman. I honestly wanted to understand the reason for the post. If it was just an aside, then I would enjoy it as such (not that I did not do that anyway). If you intended to make a general comment about what had gone before, whether in my post or another, that was not clear. The direction and intent was not obvious. So I asked.
You don't necessarily have to quote from any post. Just providing your own thoughts related to the verses that give your thoughts about (fill in the blank idea that has been expressed) is good.
As for pointing to awareness, I can agree with you somewhat. He does seem to get a bit of a thrill from being a contrarian or coming up with novel thoughts. But that doesn't mean we can just reject everything that he says as pointless or meaningless.
For example, when the opening passage says "what must soon take place," there becomes a level of uncertainty for people living in a time that is about half as much after that writing as the simplest version of the creation of the earth is said to be before it. Answering with "a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years" does not respond to the fact that the passage speaks to mankind with "soon take place." The verse about the 1 = 1,000 and/or 1,000 = 1 is talking about the fact that God is essentially outside of our time constraints. He is not bound in this universe of time. But we are still in time and the writing was to us, not an explanation about God, so the assumption that 1 = 1,000 and 1,000 = 1 is not necessarily a meaningful answer.
I am not trying to push that version of Revelation as simply about the fall of Jerusalem as some do. But there is a question as to whether there is something in Revelation about that as well as so much about the end times. Maybe the so-called split in the book is more than just a retelling with different emphasis. Not saying that I have really considered that, but I have often wondered whether we say that is what it is because someone some years earlier said it and it has just stuck. Since there is no hard evidence to refute either, the first version out of the box often gains the upper hand.
My comments about Revelation are not meant to dismiss it. I have faith that it is somehow telling us about the ultimate judgment on Satan and his followers as was promised first in Genesis 3 and then in more detail in later passages. I see the restoration of man as occurring in two phases, in this life, and through a reading of Revelation, in full along with the restoration of the earth.
But my experience and observation has been that focusing too much on Revelation is often at the expense of necessary focus on faith and obedience in this life on a day-to-day basis. That is the underpinning of my comments and questions. And when I made that first comment about agreeing at least a little with Harold, that is all it was about. It was about his comment. Not whatever else he said or whoever it was that he was engaged with.
It was a jumping-off point for a variant position that did link to his.
You've been on these forums since I first started participating roughly 9 years ago (if I remember correctly). You should know that I try to be clear (and sometimes succeed). And I try to discover what is being said or meant to be said. I am not shy about speaking my opinion, as are many others. And my posts are often complained about as being too long.
To the extent that I have had a beef with you these few days, it has been about the perception that you want to hold out a position for which the necessary evidence of validity does not seem to be there and you don't want to help fill the gaps. That is its own issue. Do not presume that when I ask about something else that my angst has transferred and I am picking on you. I am not. If awareness, aron, or Ohio had posted the very same words, I would have asked them — probably in a similar fashion. The only common theme is the desire for enough information to understand the purpose and point of any particular post.
So, if you made it this far, understand that I follow your response. At the same time, you did not actually indicate how it responded to my post (if it was intended to — which could be the problem . . . maybe it was not) and not to whatever it was what awareness said that was not what I was talking about. Faith is important. We live by it. And we accept some things that we don't understand, like a fair bit of Revelation, because of our faith.
And maybe the problem is that the way I jumped off of awareness' post made it appear that I was buying into all that he said. That was not the case. But if that was the point, then it may have more to do with what he said than what I said.
And if so, then I have gotten what I wanted — something to understand.