Armageddon is a real war, which will kill large numbers of people in a literal sense. True or false?

[ViaCrucis]

I think you're a futurist because it's convenient to assume that Armageddon is not WW3, which would kill far more people than WW1 & WW2.

Most people would like to think that their country wouldn't be invaded and their people subsequently killed by this war, but such wishful thinking is a fallacy of logic.

Besides, futurism is not part of Christianity in the mainstream, as far as I'm aware.

...what?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bouan Philippe]

...what?

-CryptoLutheran

Pardon me, it's a mistake on my part, but the word, "futurist" should be replaced by "idealist" instead.

 

[parousia70]

This answer contradicts Revelation 6:8, which has specifically said that 25 percent will be killed by the SWORD.

The War is real, and the carnage is also real.

This poses an insurmountable problem for the literalist/futurist.
Swords are the tools of Ancient Warfare, not Modern warfare.

 

[2BeholdHisGlory]

This poses an insurmountable problem for the literalist/futurist.
Swords are the tools of Ancient Warfare, not Modern warfare.

Unless that whole green new deal is in place, then electric grain mills will now be like two women grinding at the mill. Gun confiscation will have people buying swords, etc.

I couldnt resist

 

[Bouan Philippe]

This poses an insurmountable problem for the literalist/futurist.
Swords are the tools of Ancient Warfare, not Modern warfare.

Revelation was written by St. John during the 1st century AD when no weapons of modern warfare existed at all.

By definition, it's called a revealed religion because God had revealed such prophetic visions to John during the 1st century.

How was John to interpret the futuristic scenes of carnage, death, and destruction from the two world wars?

Obviously, he would use his own language and culture to try to describe the modern weapons, such as nuclear weapons, biological weapons, mustard gas, long range missiles, tanks, aircraft, battleships, artillery, and small arms, etc.

Rather than try to invent 'new' words to describe such modern weapons of warfare, John would stick to his own language and culture instead.

Knowing that these are futuristic images of real weapons, John would use his own language and culture to try to describe such weapons.

The most common ancient weapon being the sword John would've used the image of a "sword" to try to describe the entire inventory of modern weapons, which had no modern names at all during the 1st century.

However, I think that your attempt to avert WW3 will ultimately fail, because there is no reason to assume that John wasn't talking about the weapons of modern warfare due to his divinely inspired prophecies of the future Armageddon.

 

[parousia70]

Revelation was written by St. John during the 1st century AD when no weapons of modern warfare existed at all.

By definition, it's called a revealed religion because God had revealed such prophetic visions to John during the 1st century.

How was John to interpret the futuristic scenes of carnage, death, and destruction from the two world wars?

Obviously, he would use his own language and culture to try to describe the modern weapons, such as nuclear weapons, biological weapons, mustard gas, long range missiles, tanks, aircraft, battleships, artillery, and small arms, etc.

Rather than try to invent 'new' words to describe such modern weapons of warfare, John would stick to his own language and culture instead.

Knowing that these are futuristic images of real weapons, John would use his own language and culture to try to describe such weapons.

The most common ancient weapon being the sword John would've used the image of a "sword" to try to describe the entire inventory of modern weapons, which had no modern names at all during the 1st century.

However, I think that your attempt to avert WW3 will ultimately fail, because there is no reason to assume that John wasn't talking about the weapons of modern warfare due to his divinely inspired prophecies of the future Armageddon.

Do you have anything besides pure speculation and assumption to back up these claims?

So far all I see is circular reasoning:
“John is obviously talking about modern weaponry. The fact he is describing ancient weapons proves he is talking about modern weaponry”

that’s a shakey foundation to build upon.

there is no reason to assume that John wasn't talking about the weapons of modern warfare

Rather, Revelation 1:1-3 gives us every reason to conclude he wasn’t.

Regardless, thank you for demonstrating you are not a literalist.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

Do you have anything besides pure speculation and assumption to back up these claims?

So far all I see is circular reasoning:
“John is obviously talking about modern weaponry. The fact he is describing ancient weapons proves he is talking about modern weaponry”

that’s a shakey foundation to build upon.



Rather, Revelation 1:1-3 gives us every reason to conclude he wasn’t.

Regardless, thank you for demonstrating you are not a literalist.

This is rubbish.

 

[parousia70]

This is rubbish.

Thank you for demonstrating you don’t have a cogent, sober rebuttal.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

Thank you for demonstrating you don’t have a cogent, sober rebuttal.

Absolutely rubbish.

 

[parousia70]

Absolutely rubbish.

Our readers are smart enough to see who’s position more closely resembles rubbish.
I trust that they’ll conclude, as I have, that you have no rebuttal, since, quite frankly, you don’t. Otherwise you’d have presented one.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

Sounds more like Islam than like Christianity.

Are you close to some muslim community in France?

Say "hello" to Slimore on my behalf.