One of the benefits of having a discussion in writing would seem to be that it would be harder to misquote someone. I mean the words are all right there on the screen. One of the drawbacks is that due to the fact you're reading the discussion it may not always be clear how the person meant what they typed...was it supposed to be funny, nasty, angry, sarcastic...I'm sure you see where I'm coming from.

Like Pat complaining about the "worldwide pacifism" we are suffering through right now...I was not quite sure how to take that...the comment was so off the wall I didn't know if he was making a joke or if he really thinks we've got a big problem on our hands with...umm...worldwide pacifism. I mean I laughed when I read it but was I supposed to laugh? Sorry, Pat, to keep bringing that one up but it was one for the ages and I doubt you'll see an end to that one getting thrown around until...well...I don't know you either top it (Brad thinks you can) or explain it. So, next time Kevin G brings up abortion, or someone complains about the high cost of gasoline...at least it's going to occur to me to throw out "Yeah, but what about this disaster we've got on our hands with this plague of worldwide pacifism."

It's just so damn good! How can we not use that one? Sorry...back to my point...

Well, see the thing is I do find it somewhat comical that you took something I typed, Green, and turned it into something else entirely. I'm sure that was not your intention but there is certainly a humorous side to that.

See the stuff I wrote was meant to be straightforward and easy to understand. Unlike Jesus in some of his speeches I chose not to go the route of explaining myself in parables. I mean I can do that...but that leaves things open to all sorts of interpretations and I just wanted to be clear.

Here's the thing you took something I wrote:

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.

and turned it into:

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

Ahhh...no...I didn't say that, I said my perspective was warped. I said that because I knew you'd take issue with it and because I knew it would not even sound remotely Christian to you. So, I was admitting to you, in advance, that I saw things in a very different way and that I did not at all expect you to agree with me and that what I was saying should not at all be confused with a statement of fact but instead just my take on things. I did say that, yeah, I don't think it is meant to be taken literally.

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

A.  you keep quoting scripture

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

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

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.

See from my perspective there are a lot of things in the Bible that are open to interpretation and due to this simple fact there are plenty of Christians who don't agree on what certain passages mean. In fact in terms of the book of Revelations there are at least four main schools of thought on what it contains:

1. That all prophecies it contains have been fulfilled already.

2. That all prophecies are in the process of being fulfilled.

3. That all things in the book are predictions of things yet to come.

4. That all things in the book are only symbols of spiritual struggles that have no literal or historical application.

Now, anyone who is bothering to read this discussion we're having other than you and I could likely guess what camps each of us fall into. The thing is with the book of Revelations folks really love to fight for their interpretation because they see a lot at stake in it. Which is one reason why I think it's a real trouble making book. Hey, who knows...perhaps it's inclusion is a trick of Satan himself...if you choose to believe in such things...because he knows it will cause such division between Christians and man, ain't that what the dude with the horns digs?

I call it a dreamy warning because all that stuff in their about slaying armies and a city of gold seems the sort of lusty images men desire...and just from my perspective...not the sort of thing a "superior being" would partake in...that's all human longing, lust, and desire and I just feel that our God would be above all that. Now you could say it's all poetic license and the stuff in Revelations is most certainly poetic...but to charge this John fellow was just putting things in terms a man could understand seems to indicate that we should not take the book literally...or are you saying you believe a City of Gold will descend from the sky?  

Anyway, I'm just saying that you misinterpreted something I wrote which seemed, at least to me, a lot clearer than many things in the Bible. So, should I trust your interpretations of the Good Book as correct? I'm not being a smart ass either I'm just making a point. The translator always has decisions to make when translating...take this for example:

godisnowhere

Let's say that phrase above was written in Greek or Hebrew, or Aramaic...and it was fading and printed on parchment that was falling apart and all the letters were all run together as they are above...now one person may translate it as:

god is now here

while the next guy may say it says:

god is nowhere

Big difference in the meaning of the two phrases. You trust that down through the ages all the folks that worked on translating and assembling the Bible got it right and were guided by God. I don't.

Let's take the King James version of the Bible just as an example. Now a lot of folks like to say that's the definitive English translation but it was finished I think around 1611 and they did not even have copies of the actual Greek manuscripts in England until 1628...I think...check that info if you'd like...but the point is they just copied from other Bibles at the time. Other Bibles that at times added or subtracted text. They just went with what they felt was most pleasing a the time. Hardly accurate and hardly definitive...so you go with what you choose and you go in faith...like you said a lot of information we accept is passed on to us through several sources. We just don't call all that info the Word of God.

Sorry I didn't keep that short, Ed. Did I already point out that 'Ed' and 'Evil' both begin with the letter 'E'?