It is the 21st Century Christians should discard the book of Revelation

[Roses]

Revelation, which very nearly didn't make it into the Bible, is open to a myriad of interpretations, many of which are completely off the wall. They would be amusing if it wasn't for extreme Biblical literalists who use that book to bolster their crazy end time and hell fire threats.

The moderate Christians of my acquaintance don't buy Revelation at all, and share my thoughts on the topic.

What do posters on this forum think about ditching that book?

[Nearly Sane]

Revelation, which very nearly didn't make it into the Bible, is open to a myriad of interpretations, many of which are completely off the wall. They would be amusing if it wasn't for extreme Biblical literalists who use that book to bolster their crazy end time and hell fire threats.

The moderate Christians of my acquaintance don't buy Revelation at all, and share my thoughts on the topic.

What do posters on this forum think about ditching that book?

'Not my circus, not my monkeys'

[Anchorman]

There is much in Revelation which is useful - the 'letters to the seven churches', for example. Much is gobblegegook - untill you realise that, like several Old Testament and Apocrypha books, the apocalyptic language was designed for its hearers, who would be familiar with the symbolism. Revelation is one such; much of the imageary is not prophetic Mystic Meg stuff - it is directed at the churches in Asia Minor which had suffered the first Neronic persecution, and whose Jewish element were still reeling after Vespasian and Titus' action in their homeland. Jews and Christians had been scattered....taking their understanding of the apocalyptic language with them. John writes in a way they could understand, but which bamboozles us. Most of the book deals with life as they lived it, not at a future date - even the prophetic stuff is studded with references to other apocalyptic books; our problem is that, while we can easily interpret the stuff about lamps, bowls, scrolls, beasts, etc, some of it is so obscure to our time that we can't interpret it easily - and this leads many to put interpretations on it which were never there in the first place. I've used Revelation a lot - and will do so again. But I treat the book both with reverence and caution. Here's an intro to the book from a reasonably balanced theologian; https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=916

[Roses]

When I was a kid, and forced to attend a pentecostal church, the pastors seemed to spend more time quoting Revelation than any other Biblical book. They seemed to get off on trying to scare their audience with their grisly interpretations of that book. I know how much it frightened me as a child, I am concerned that modern day pentecostal pastors are still scaring children and the vulnerable with that horrible nonsense.

[Anchorman]

When I was a kid, and forced to attend a pentecostal church, the pastors seemed to spend more time quoting Revelation than any other Biblical book. They seemed to get off on trying to scare their audience with their grisly interpretations of that book. I know how much it frightened me as a child, I am concerned that modern day pentecostal pastors are still scaring children and the vulnerable with that horrible nonsense.

   



So: because you had a bad experience of one part of one denomination of the Church, you want the book ditched?
Many other branches of that denomination, and other denominations, can cope with the symbolism perfectly well, using the book in context as part of sermon or bible study, without getting into daft ideas concerning it.

[SteveH]

   



So: because you had a bad experience of one part of one denomination of the Church, you want the book ditched?
Many other branches of that denomination, and other denominations, can cope with the symbolism perfectly well, using the book in context as part of sermon or bible study, without getting into daft ideas concerning it.

Exactemundo. Unfortunately, LR is incapable of objectivity.

[Roses]

Exactemundo. Unfortunately, LR is incapable of objectivity.

And you are I suppose? You posts don't give that impression. One can only speak from one's own experience as you do.

[Anchorman]

Have a shuftie at this link, LR: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/things-might-mistakenly-believe-book-revelation/ It tells you, roughly, what Revelation ISN'T about.

[SteveH]

And you are I suppose? You posts don't give that impression. One can only speak from one's own experience as you do.

Firstly, that isn't true, and secondly, no, I don't.

[Roses]

Firstly, that isn't true, and secondly, no, I don't.

Sez you! 

[Dicky Underpants]

Revelation, which very nearly didn't make it into the Bible, is open to a myriad of interpretations, many of which are completely off the wall. They would be amusing if it wasn't for extreme Biblical literalists who use that book to bolster their crazy end time and hell fire threats.

The moderate Christians of my acquaintance don't buy Revelation at all, and share my thoughts on the topic.

What do posters on this forum think about ditching that book?

As long as it's considered the unequivocal 'word of God' there is indeed potential for much harm. As a work of literature, it's rather more interesting than many ancient religious texts, and its imagery is no more fantastical than Ezekiel or the Book of Daniel.  As such, I wouldn't want it 'ditched' - I'm not into book burning.
It does betray signs of an undesirable emotional state in the mind of the writer - to say the least. He's obviously very vexed about the persecution that many Christians have received, and wishes that his opposers be paid back not so much in kind, as a millionfold. Lots of anticipated Schadenfreude there.
However, the last two chapters are (for the most part) very beautiful, and no doubt provide comfort for suffering believers.

[jeremyp]

There is much in Revelation which is useful - the 'letters to the seven churches', for example. Much is gobblegegook - untill you realise that, like several Old Testament and Apocrypha books, the apocalyptic language was designed for its hearers, who would be familiar with the symbolism. Revelation is one such; much of the imageary is not prophetic Mystic Meg stuff - it is directed at the churches in Asia Minor which had suffered the first Neronic persecution, and whose Jewish element were still reeling after Vespasian and Titus' action in their homeland. Jews and Christians had been scattered....taking their understanding of the apocalyptic language with them. John writes in a way they could understand, but which bamboozles us. Most of the book deals with life as they lived it, not at a future date - even the prophetic stuff is studded with references to other apocalyptic books; our problem is that, while we can easily interpret the stuff about lamps, bowls, scrolls, beasts, etc, some of it is so obscure to our time that we can't interpret it easily - and this leads many to put interpretations on it which were never there in the first place. I've used Revelation a lot - and will do so again. But I treat the book both with reverence and caution. Here's an intro to the book from a reasonably balanced theologian; https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=916

That sounds like a pretty strong argument for LR's proposal. The book was written using symbolism we don't understand for people who were persecuted by an empire that no longer exists and who are, themselves, long dead. It seems to me that its only use now is for historians of the period.

[Rhiannon]

Exactemundo. Unfortunately, LR is incapable of objectivity.

The scenario that she describes is abusive, even more so when seen in the context of other things she’s told us about her religious upbringing.

I’d struggle to be objective in her shoes.

[SteveH]

The scenario that she describes is abusive, even more so when seen in the context of other things she’s told us about her religious upbringing.

I’d struggle to be objective in her shoes.

Rubbish. It just needs a bit of intelligence.

[Robbie]

Is that your objective opinion  ?

I doubt many of us are totally objective, that's frequently obvious when a person isn't even when they are not talking about themselves! However it's not a good idea to personalise things too much because arguments lose credibility, far better to speak generally about issues debated. That's my objective opinion.

[Rhiannon]

Rubbish. It just needs a bit of intelligence.

How about some empathy?

[SteveH]

How about some empathy?

How about some getting over it?

[Robbie]

How about you not rising to the bait all the time and ignoring instead?

[SteveH]

How about you not rising to the bait all the time and ignoring instead?

Fair point. Might do.

[Rhiannon]

How about some getting over it?

That’s a no then.

Thought one of the non-negotiables of your faith was compassion?

[Roses]

I have got over my unpleasant childhood experience of religion by kicking my faith into touch. However, I will always challenge those who still preach the same garbage I had to put up with, causing stress to children and the vulnerable. If the Steve H's of this world can't cope with that, I suggest they ignore my posts, SIMPLES!

[Rhiannon]

I have got over my unpleasant childhood experience of religion by kicking my faith into touch. However, I will always challenge those who still preach the same garbage I had to put up with, causing stress to children and the vulnerable. If the Steve H's of this world can't cope with that, I suggest they ignore my posts, SIMPLES!

Yes, I agree, you can recover from something but still be angry when you see it still happening,

[Roses]

Yes, I agree, you can recover from something but still be angry when you see it still happening,

There have been a number of people over the years on this forum who have tried to scare people into conversion by using hell-fire threats. Most posters dismissed their nonsense with the contempt it deserved, but there was always the outside possibility someone who was vulnerable would be distressed by their claptrap.

I was concerned NM's garbage could scare some people, but with each post he makes it obvious he hasn't a clue what he is talking about, so I doubt even the vulnerable would be taken in by it.

[SteveH]

IO don't think NM ever preaches hellfire.

[Roses]

IO don't think NM ever preaches hellfire.

He does threaten people with the day of judgement and god's wrath if they don't see it his way.