Hey Reg:)

Whether written or verbal, people, due to all sorts of variables, miscommunicate and misunderstand, while thinking themselves perfectly lucid. We surely agree it's human, it's usual, and I do not deny my own frequent guilt. Too, clarification can be a valuable enlightening component of an honest disagreement.

Take this instance. I was partially wrong. I did indeed misquote you, by inaccurately attributing 'warped' as your opinion of the epistle rather than referencing your own perspective, as written. My fault, I must 've missed your 'my', more likely it was late and I inattentive, thank you for offering the benefit of the doubt in advance. (:

R> It's not meant to be read as a literal forecast of the future but as a sort of dreamy warning from my obviously warped perspective. It's not meant to be read as a literal forecast of the future but as a sort of dreamy warning from my obviously warped perspective. It's not meant to be read as a literal forecast of the future but as a sort of dreamy warning from my obviously warped perspective.

G> So you're saying John recording the Revelation of Jesus Christ is warped and not to be taken literally. So you're saying John recording the Revelation of Jesus Christ is warped and not to be taken literally. So you're saying John recording the Revelation of Jesus Christ is warped and not to be taken literally.

R> This is also why I'm not going to write a response to every line in your reply because This is also why I'm not going to write a response to every line in your reply because This is also why I'm not going to write a response to every line in your reply because

[This is not meant as mean spirited, but under other circumstances I am certain you would agree: Utilizing a 'universal generalization' to cop out(B & C), instead of responding in kind, on topic, says what about your opponents position(s).]

R> A.  you keep quoting scripture A.  you keep quoting scripture A.  you keep quoting scripture

Given the subject matter, that is unreasonable how? Tell me Reg: would you have taken a pass, if I too, only offered up my personal opinion? I doubt it.-) Certainly you and I took opposing positions regarding whether Jesus was/is a passivist. I refuted many of your unsubstantiated opinions about Jesus from the, essentially exclusive, first hand source concerning the Lord. As I am fond of saying, the scripture is, 'the excuse for their existence', referring to churches and preachers and opinions.

So! you didn't mention whether you actually believe Jesus emptied the joint by passive resistance(sit-in or hunger strike).

R> B.  you seem to feel you have cornered the market on the proper interpretation of everything in the Bible B.  you seem to feel you have cornered the market on the proper interpretation of everything in the Bible B.  you seem to feel you have cornered the market on the proper interpretation of everything in the Bible

Our last round would again seem to illustrate I can support my opinions quite apart from private interpretation(which btw is scripturally forbidden, so I endeavor to be careful thereat). From the source mentioned above, I have made a case(s) in response to your minute proposition(s). When have we ever approached broaching 'everything in the Bible', c'mon.-)

R> C.  I don't really want to go through the Bible line by line with you in this manner because due to 'B' it would seem you would find most of my interpretations wrong C.  I don't really want to go through the Bible line by line with you in this manner because due to 'B' it would seem you would find most of my interpretations wrong C.  I don't really want to go through the Bible line by line with you in this manner because due to 'B' it would seem you would find most of my interpretations wrong

Me neither, NTL, I have offered documentation contradicting your assertions, while you have not demonstrated I was inaccurate in any way. Something to consider ... What if? you! are making an eternal decision based on other misapplied or under-examined data?

Would I be correct in deducing your only difficulty with the scripture I presented was your refusal to take it at face value? That comprehension was not the difficulty?

I have a classic Satanic deception for your consideration: the comforting whisper of 'you needn't listen to/consider that' because scripture is incomprehensible to mere men like him! Not much of a God that. Fortunately mine chose to utilize fifth and a half grade English to reveal himself to his creatures. And his Son deciphered the parables(for his disciples).

R> D. I've already outlined what I feel our big issue is and that's that you come at the Bible from a faith based perspective which I don't share...so from there we just agree to disagree. D. I've already outlined what I feel our big issue is and that's that you come at the Bible from a faith based perspective which I don't share...so from there we just agree to disagree. D. I've already outlined what I feel our big issue is and that's that you come at the Bible from a faith based perspective which I don't share...so from there we just agree to disagree.

We established that long ago Reg. However, sticking to what we were actually discussing, I was responding as authoritatively as I could manage to the present conversation wherein I attempt to dispel you of quaint but incorrect opinions about my God(that he is in fact, Priest, Prophet, King, commands an army, and was/is not a passivist). We are having an amiable argument, a debate, a stating of our cases due to having contrary beliefs. That it has eternal consequences is an individual decision, and you could yet change your mind/heart, we have made our distinct decisions.

And as my God instructs, ...come let us reason together... so I am trying ...

As to Jesus' dictated epistle:

I would tell you that part of it is HISTORICAL, little is DOCTRINAL and the greater portion is PROPHETIC, meaning chapter 4 to the end. Clearly, Revelations presents itself as a literal futurewhere God's anger at mens disobedience is bearing down upon humanity. That's pretty straight forward. And as Jesus states at the outset it is ...to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;

R> ...I just feel that our God would be above all that. ...I just feel that our God would be above all that. ...I just feel that our God would be above all that.

By your own account, you don't trust on Jesus. That clearly establishes that your God is not my God ... so who is the 'our God' you refer to Reg? Because my God, who has chosen to reveal himself through the written word, wrote that at some future date he is planning on relocating his holy city to Jerusalem.

R> ...or are you saying you believe a City of Gold will descend from the sky? ...or are you saying you believe a City of Gold will descend from the sky? ...or are you saying you believe a City of Gold will descend from the sky?

In fact I do Reg. Presently that very city is in Heaven. (Did you know that string theory postulates at least nine dimensions? Surely the spirit world is among them.) Doesn't your God have a dwelling place? I would suggest to you that this was what Jesus was talking about when he said, In my Father’s house are many mansions.

OH, almost forgot, the text says it's meant to be an actual forecast of things to come. Further, if the text is to be believed, you aren't refuting me Reg, you're disavowing Jesus Christ. Not that I expect this to change your opinion, because I understand you don't believe that, but I think it bears clarification since you attribute a different meaning than the text reads; coupled with your insistence we are discussing my interpretation. Just so there is no further misunderstanding on your part, you are butting heads with scripture that claim to be the words of God,* not my interpretation.

Given the numerous threats of our time, and since you do believe some of Jesus' opinions, I leave you with two last quotes from Jesus' lips:

Mt 24:22* And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened. Mr 13:20* And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

Not the positive loving message people 'prefer' to attribute to Jesus huh?

Y'know Reg, even when it turns out we disagree, which unfortunately, is pretty much inevitable where Jesus and scripture are concerned, I am always eager to read your missives.

Still fearing for your soul Mon, Wm (:

* Just another scriptural curiosity regarding the names and titles of scriptural personages. Jesus is also referred to as the 'Word of God', suggesting a greater connection between himself and the text than one might think. Think spiritual.