Left Behind a superstition? Armageddon a myth?

Saucy, with all due respect, a literal reading of apocalyptic literature is automatically mishandling it. Apocalyptic literature is highly symbolic, poetic, and metaphoric, and was meant to be read and interpreted as such.

The preterist would agree that the events (or most of them) in John's vision would occur soon; in the Olivet discourse, Jesus himself said his generation would not pass before his prophecy was fulfilled.

Click to expand...

That is one question I have, Forest Lord. Jesus did say it would be soon, which would certainly fit the Revelation events referring to what happened in 70 more so than still in the future from now (and we all know how often evangelicals here and there in the near past have tried to predict when Armaggedon would happen). But if John's vision was brought to the written word in 95, 25 years after it occurred, I just don't see the point of it, unless there was a whole 'nother lesson altogether that God meant to reveal to us through Revelation other than anything prophetic.

It's been a while since I've read up on eschatology, but there are some scholars who push for an earlier date than 95. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you their reasoning right now.

Edit- Did I misread your post?

Click to expand...

No, I think you've answered my question as best as you could.


And in any event, I do kind of think that, if Revelation were a literal (or literal to the extent a human being can see these fantastical things depicted in the book) thing that will happen as the futurists behind the Left Behind books obviously seem it, then I find the imagery of really everything therein except the Rapture to be quite horrific and I dare say it disturbs my faith a little. This seeming all-out war for "eternal souls", to the point where the saints may even kill in retaliation as much as followers of a human called the Anti-Christ down and kill the saints, the huge dragon waiting before a woman to swallow her child, literal torment of the anti-christ followers by fire and brimstone as SAINTS SIT AND WATCH, the winepress imagery of God's wrath (I remember a section of one of the LB books giving an even more detailed picture in reference to that last thing, where the "evil people" literally explode at Christ's appearing). I have no qualms about saying this disturbs me, and seems like an actually unnecessary string of horrific events just to eventually bring God's victory over Evil. Something that He wants and made to happen himself. Yes, yes, there's my faulty human emotional reasoning taking prevalence there, as more zealous believers would probably say of people who say something like I did just now, but I feel no shame in using my personal sense of conscience to assist me in my search for Biblical truth.

Not saying that last thing to passively insult any of the more conservative/fundamentalist and/or zealous believers here, like claiming that you don't have a conscience or something. I just wanted to get that out, so that you all know where I stand in my views on how to relate to God and Christ and how I search for theological truth (on all but who Christ is and what He did for me; of THAT I am 100% reliant and sure on, because in this indeed the Bible is actually very clear to me, that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life).

There is that proverb that "there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death". So that would seem to suggest that my getting my sense of logic and emotions involved in the mix will only lead me to believe false things. But if one lets the Holy Spirit guide them instead of just accepting the first doctrine taught to them in church as a child, then might the Holy Spirit begin to influence those very emotions and ways of thinking?

_________________________________________

I'm not saying Dispensationalism is a damnable doctrine, but rather that there were dubious theologies circulating at the same time Dispensationalism was formed, and for that reason, Dispensationalism should be analyzed before being espoused.

Click to expand...

And that, Forest Lord, is the attitude I try to take at all times, trying to make it known to anyone who I disagree with on Biblical interpretation that I do not think in the least that because of doctrinal differences they are heretics or "damnable". I think believers who do that are only fooling themselves into thinking they have the monopoly on God's wisdom and truth. Things like conditional vs. inherent immortality, preterism vs. futurism, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, etc., ultimately do not have anything to do with Christ Himself, and only by denying Him does one have not eternal life, and even then, God knows the heart of someone, not other people, so I feel it is not up to us to make any such judgment. If peripheral issues were of that magnitude of importance, then no one here can possibly say with confidence that we aren't all screwed, then.