robbie + bannockburn 1314

Originally posted by FMF
Revelation is for you "probably the most important book" because you revel in obscurantism. That Catholic priest probably sees himself as a follower of what Christ is actually reported to have said and therefore thinks Revelation is bogus. His comment to you seemed a diplomatic way of dealing with Revelation.

Ok whatever your opinion is, is fine for you.

Originally posted by FMF
Revelation 13:11 is - in your opinion - about the League Of Nations [1919–1946] because you cannot think of anything else it might be about?

Well I was truly hopeing we would have an adult conversation about this but here we go again with silly questions.........as usual.
But to answer you I have NO doubt as to what Revelation is speaking of here. None at all.

Originally posted by galveston75
Don't you think someone has to be right or was the Bible written to just fool us all?

My question was: "If a Christian disagrees with you about the USA & Britain and the League of Nations and the United Nations being "described in Revelation" as you claim, are they wrong, and you right?"

A question to me, in response, about why I think "the Bible was written" is just a dodge. If a Christian disagrees with you about the the League of Nations being "described" in Revelation 13:11, is he wrong and you right?

Originally posted by galveston75
...to answer you I have NO doubt as to what Revelation is speaking of here. None at all.

Because you haven't heard a better explanation?

Originally posted by galveston75
Ok whatever your opinion is, is fine for you.

So you agree that there may be a reasonable rationale for that Catholic priest to not teach what he may see as a bogus addition to the biblical canon?

Originally posted by galveston75
Well I was truly hopeing we would have an adult conversation about this but here we go again with silly questions.........as usual.

I don't think my questions here are "silly" at all. I think I am trying to get to the heart of why you think your opinions about Revelation 13:11 are more valid than any other Christian's opinion. You think your explanation is correct because, as you claimed, "nothing else comes close to that explanation". Questioning the extraordinarily subjective nature of this purported "truth" can hardly be dismissed as being not "adult" or being "silly".

Originally posted by FMF
My question was: "If a Christian disagrees with you about the USA & Britain and the League of Nations and the United Nations being "described in Revelation" as you claim, are they wrong, and you right?"

A question to me, in response, about why I think "the Bible was written" is just a dodge. If a Christian disagrees with you about the the League of Nations being "described" in Revelation 13:11, is he wrong and you right?

My answer is yes they are wrong. No need to keep asking this question as I just answered it as clear as possible.

Originally posted by FMF
Because you haven't heard a better explanation?

No one else has an explination and the few that might have one are dead wrong. It's as clear to me what Revelation is talkng about is as clear to me that you have no idea at all.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't think my questions here are "silly" at all. I think I am trying to get to the heart of why you think your opinions about Revelation 13:11 are more valid than any other Christian's opinion. You think your explanation is correct because, as you claimed, "nothing else comes close to that explanation". Questioning the extraordinarily subjective nature of this purported "truth" can hardly be dismissed as being not "adult" or being "silly".

Then ask what you mean to ask and stop side stepping the question.

Originally posted by galveston75
My answer is yes they are wrong.

In which case, why do you think Revelation 13:11 didn't mention the League Of Nations by name? Wouldn't it have supported your interpretation more strongly if it had mentioned it by name rather than talking about the "first beast" with a "mortal wound" that was "healed"?

Originally posted by galveston75
Then ask what you mean to ask and stop side stepping the question.

I think I have been perfectly clear: why do you think your subjective opinion about what Revelation 13:11-12 is specifically referring to, is more valid than any other Christian's opinion which might happen not to coincide with yours?

Originally posted by galveston75
No one else has an explination and the few that might have one are dead wrong. It's as clear to me what Revelation is talkng about is as clear to me that you have no idea at all.

Why do you think that your proposed explanation does not convince all the people who you claim are "dead wrong"?

Originally posted by FMF
In which case, why do you think Revelation 13:11 didn't mention the League Of Nations by name? Wouldn't it have supported your interpretation more strongly if it had mentioned it by name rather than talking about the "first beast" with a "mortal wound" that was "healed"?

It isn't mentioned so ones wanting to truly know would ask God and be willing to listen.

Originally posted by FMF
Why do you think that your proposed explanation does not convince all the people who you claim are "dead wrong"?

Who knows. Ask them.

Originally posted by FMF
Why do you think that your proposed explanation does not convince all the people who you claim are "dead wrong"?

And I saw the beast resembling a horse coming fast from the east.
Lo! a great curse did he carry with him as he swept swiftly across the board and captured my Queen.

And there was great turmoil in the land thereafter.

The white army fell in great numbers and the revelation came which had started on move number 13. The white King was captured and all his people enslaved.

I did appeal to the league of nations for relief but none was forthcoming.

There was wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The white King was flung into the lake of fire which is the second death.