Please show interest in an upcoming debate...

[Jonny_P]

Hello Everyone

I, Jon Promnitz, will be debating Jason Gastrich at www.iidb.org (http://www.iidb.org). He has made it clear that unless I find supporters (or people that are interested and will follow it) he will not participate. Please respond as soon as possible to this message if a debate relating to the Second Coming prophecies of Jesus and the Disciples interests you.

This very topic is one of the reasons I don't believe the Bible to be 'inspired' or 'divine'. Please show your support and respond so Jason goes through with this debate. I would enjoy taking the time to show Jason and others that Jesus and the disciples were incorrect.

Also, it would be nice if some of you spread the word and get others to respond with interest also.

Thank you,
JonnyP :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Quick! Make this a poll!!!

Yes! I would be interested..

Make sure you give us a link if the debate takes place...

Of course, if Jesus shows up in the meantime.. Nevermind...

[Lord Emsworth]

I wonder, do you have considered reading poetry to cats?

But if the debate takes place I will give it a look.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
I wonder, do you have considered reading poetry to cats?


Pillory, is that you?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Pillory, is that you?



No, no Pillory here.

And I didn't mean you.

[Iacchus]

The Book of Revelation (http://www.swedenborg.com/presentation.asp?qsSubNav=AboutSwedenborg&qsContent=AboutSwedenborg-KeyConceptsInSwedenborgsTheology#radicalclaim) has already been fulfilled.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The Book of Revelation (http://www.swedenborg.com/presentation.asp?qsSubNav=AboutSwedenborg&qsContent=AboutSwedenborg-KeyConceptsInSwedenborgsTheology#radicalclaim) has already been fulfilled.

You mean the Whore of Babylon has come and gone, and I missed her?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes

You mean the Whore of Babylon has come and gone, and I missed her? The Roman Catholic Church.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Diogenes


You mean the Whore of Babylon has come and gone, and I missed her?

It wasn't Britney Spears?

[Humphreys]

I'm interested! :)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The Roman Catholic Church.

I always though Babylon was in the Middle East; turns out it was in Rome all this time. :o

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

I always though Babylon was in the Middle East; turns out it was in Rome all this time. :o It actually has more to do with what Babylon represents, the love of dominion over the holy things of the church, derived from the love of self which, is what the Roman Catholic Church symbolized. Remember the Tower of Babel? It's pretty despicable really.

[RabbiSatan]

It actually has more to do with what Babylon represents, the love of dominion over the holy things of the church, derived from the love of self which, is what the Roman Catholic Church symbolized. Remember the Tower of Babel? It's pretty despicable really.

Great, more "symbolic" meanings :rolleyes: I'm not even going to bother.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It actually has more to do with what Babylon represents, the love of dominion over the holy things of the church, derived from the love of self which, is what the Roman Catholic Church symbolized. Remember the Tower of Babel? It's pretty despicable really.

And what makes you think it has more to do with what Babylon represents, as opposed to the actual place called Bablyon?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

And what makes you think it has more to do with what Babylon represents, as opposed to the actual place called Bablyon? Because I have it upon good authority that it does. And neither should we forget that the Bible relies heavily upon symbolism. Of course I realize that doesn't help much, but at the time the Book of Revelation was written, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church, in which case it would have seemed fitting to subtitute that which it most closely resembles. Also, the Jews were taken captive by the Babylonians at one point which, extended unto to the time of the Roman occupation (albeit in their own homeland), which is when the Book of Revelation was written. But whether that has any bearing on the matter or not I couldn't say?

[Cleopatra]

LOL

I leave ceo_esq to explain in 5000 eloquent, calm words why the "Whore of Babylon" cannot be the Roman Catholic Church. :p

[Iacchus]

However, when the Book of Revelation does refer to Babylon, it refers to a period of captivity, which is none other than the type of dominion the Roman Catholic Church held over it's constituents. And for those who belonged to it, and were not a part of its hierarchy, were treated very much like slaves (or chattel), indeed.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I'm in, at least spiritually.

Although I'm registered on Infidels, there's some technical problem that keeps me from posting, and I got tired of arguing about it.

I cannot post there.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
LOL

I leave ceo_esq to explain in 5000 eloquent, calm words why the "Whore of Babylon" cannot be the Roman Catholic Church. :p No time for such foolishness, I'm afraid. But the historical and exegetical grounds for regarding the Whore of Babylon as a personification of Imperial Rome are well known, as is the history of how certain Protestants and Mormons came to identify it with the Roman Catholic Church.

Here's a brief but sensible discussion:

http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index.php/Whore_of_Babylon

I really must decline to speculate that the author of Revelation was actually prophesying the future and had in mind the Soviet Union, the United States, the later Roman Catholic Church, or any of the other anachronistic allegories that have been proposed by subsequent interpreters. This is not to say, however, that the image of the Whore of Babylon cannot be legitimately used in critiquing some of these institutions - but only by analogy to the perception of Rome expressed by the biblical author.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because I have it upon good authority that it does.

Appeal to authority! :D

[SGT]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And neither should we forget that the Bible relies heavily upon symbolism.

In certain Christian circles, this opinion would be considered heretic. Don't you know that the Bible is to be read literally?
In your opinion, wich parts of the Bible are symbolic and wich are literal?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by SGT

In certain Christian circles, this opinion would be considered heretic.No doubt. (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=113)


Don't you know that the Bible is to be read literally?Says who?


In your opinion, wich parts of the Bible are symbolic and wich are literal? If it's not as plain as the nose on your face, then you might want to consider what it means symbolically. And even then, I don't strictly adhere to the idea that it might only be symbolic, because sometimes it's both.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by SGT


In certain Christian circles, this opinion would be considered heretic. Don't you know that the Bible is to be read literally?
In your opinion, wich parts of the Bible are symbolic and wich are literal?

Here's my simple guide:

1) If it is in the bible and is verifiably true, it is literal
2) If it is in the bible and is verifiably not true (including logical contradictions), it is symbolic, or out of context
3) If it is in the bible and not verifiable, then
:r: a) If it makes god look good, or can be used to condemn others, it is literal
:r: b) If it makes god look bad, it is symbolic, or out of context

HTH

[RabbiSatan]

2) If it is in the bible and is verifiably not true, it is symbolic

Indeed.

What was that about the world not being created in 7 days? Oh, you see - the Bible meant it "Symbolically"! Like...erm....1 day could be an...aeon...yeah! That's it! Those 7 days were symbolic! Not truely literal!

You mean there was never a Whore of Babylon? Er....it was the...um....CATHOLIC CHURCH! YEAH! THAT'S IT!!

No...global flood either...well...erm....the "flood" was "symbollic" of the world being purged of sin by god! There really was no global flood! It was symbolism!


And so on and so forth...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Here's my simple guide:

1) If it is in the bible and is verifiably true, it is literal
2) If it is in the bible and is verifiably not true, it is symbolic
3) If it is in the bible and not verifiable, then
:r: a) If it makes god look good, or can be used to condemn others, it is literal
:r: b) If it makes god look bad, it is symbolic


HTH

Hey, what happened to ?

" If it looks like a contradiction, it must be out of context.. "

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

You mean there was never a Whore of Babylon? Er....it was the...um....CATHOLIC CHURCH! YEAH! THAT'S IT!!So, did you read the post by ceo_esq? Or, you at least might want to follow the link ... http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index.php/Whore_of_Babylon ;)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Hey, what happened to ?

" If it looks like a contradiction, it must be out of context.. "

Goes under "verifiably not true"

I could add "or out of context" when it comes to the symbolic part. <--- Done

[SGT]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, did you read the post by ceo_esq? Or, you at least might want to follow the link ... http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index.php/Whore_of_Babylon ;)

One of the motives why true believers might consider the Catholic Church to be The Whore of Babylon is that catholics tend to read the Bible as a set of symbolic teachings and not as the literal word of God.
Your admission that the Bible is symbolic seems very whorish to me.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by SGT

One of the motives why true believers might consider the Catholic Church to be The Whore of Babylon is that catholics tend to read the Bible as a set of symbolic teachings and not as the literal word of God.

Your admission that the Bible is symbolic seems very whorish to me. So, can you explain to me what the Book of Revelation means, verse for verse?

[SGT]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, can you explain to me what the Book of Revelation means, verse for verse?

Why should I explain the Book of Revelation? To me it is the same sort of gibberish newagers throw around. I don't say that Revelations should be read literally, but I am sure fundamentalist christians think that way.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by SGT

Why should I explain the Book of Revelation? To me it is the same sort of gibberish newagers throw around. I don't say that Revelations should be read literally, but I am sure fundamentalist christians think that way. I see. So you don't believe in any of it then. That's fine.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, did you read the post by ceo_esq? Or, you at least might want to follow the link ... http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index.php/Whore_of_Babylon ;)

I followed the link - lets lay it out like this, with help from our friends at Dictionary.com:

Literally:

Whore (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=whore)

whore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr)
n.
A prostitute.
A person considered sexually promiscuous.
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

of (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=of)

of ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v, v; v when unstressed)
prep.
Derived or coming from; originating at or from: customs of the South.

Babylon (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Babylon)

Bab·y·lon1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb-ln, -ln)

The capital of ancient Babylonia in Mesopotamia on the Euphrates River. Established as capital c. 1750 B.C. and rebuilt in regal splendor by Nebuchadnezzar II after its destruction (c. 689 B.C.) by the Assyrians, Babylon was the site of the Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of the World.

Pretty straight forward, a Whore of Babylon, with whom many "kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication." (Rev. 17:1-2 KJV)" Yadda yadda yadda, etc.

The website only confirms what I said - since there was no "Whore of Babylon", the passage is used as an as a "symbolic allegory" to the Roman Catholic Church to make it look like the Bible is correct.

I'm curious - why didn't God / John, instead of writing, "The Whore of Babylon", write, "The Whore of Rome" instead? Or does God work in (logically circular) mysterious ways now?

[Iacchus]

So, did you read this part? (http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index.php/Whore_of_Babylon) ...


A symbol of doom, decadence and oppression

The central principle seems to be that the term applies to the defacto superpower of the day, and is the typical perceptual characterization of the people whom the superpower typically oppresses and persecutes. Thus "Babylon" is to compare Rome to the earlier society—a similarly bloated civilization out of balance with its environment, hence out of balance with Nature and God, and therefore destined to fall.

Thus, in the time of Rome, the Bible records the use of "Babylon" as a common metaphor that was commonly understood to represent the "evil empire" of its day —headed for certain destruction if it does not correct its ways. The downfall of Babylon was the precedent, and it was known then that Rome too would fall. The defeat of the Whore of Babylon can represent not just the imminent fall of Rome itself, but of tyranny itself —the future vision described by John in the Book of Revelation, where the 'Heaven's rule overtakes the earth' putting an end to strife and evil. Of course it's referring to Rome specifically here, but goes on to describe the Roman Catholic Church immediately afterwards.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course it's referring to Rome specifically here, but goes on to describe the Roman Catholic Church immediately afterwards. And why don't you quote this "afterwards "since you have already quoted a paragraph that long?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

And why don't you quote this "afterwards "since you have already quoted a paragraph that long? Because he was supposed to have read it himself, and I was just refreshing his memory here. Neither did I see the need to quote something "twice" as long.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because he was supposed to have read it himself, and I was just refreshing his memory here. Neither did I see the need to quote something "twice" as long.

I did very well read what the website says Iacchus - but my point still stands - since there never was any "Whore of Babylon", the passage was then interpreted to mean something else as to uphold the infalibility of the bible - The section that you're quoting, ironically, proves my point.

And please - answer me this question: Since God is, as upheld by most Christians, Omnimax - why did he not inspire John to write "The Whore of Rome" in reference to the Catholic Church, instead of "The Whore of Babylon"? Surely, God in all his wisdom and omniscience would surely know that people would "interpret" his holy book differently in many ways.

[Yahweh]

Sounds like an interesting debate.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

And why don't you quote this "afterwards "since you have already quoted a paragraph that long? Oh my God! What happened to Cleo? :D

http://www.dionysus.org/images/vba2282.gif

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh my God! What happened to Cleo? :D

http://www.dionysus.org/images/vba2282.gif

Has she been spending too much time with Mary Kate Olsen?

[Edward]

If I'm not mistaken, Jesus predicted a Paraclete (in John?) and

he manifested as the Prophet Muhammed(sp). A debate is moot.

[Doctor X]

In that moot is a verb meaning "debate," yes.

--J.D.

[Jonny_P]

Hi Everyone,

The debate has begun!

Jason has given me this shortcut link:
http://iidebate4.jcsm.org

Here is the full link:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=91354

Jon