Revelations is not a book of prophecy.

Thank you for the debate as well. It is also one of my first debates. I do not mean to mock any religion or faith, so if some of my comments seem out of line, please tell me so. 1. I agree with you in the fact that if they did give a date, people wouldn't rely on faith as much. However, general statements about the possible future are not very credible. I understand the reasons why they might not have mentioned the date. It was either a: like you said, faith would have been forced or phony. b: God did not give them a date. c: the whole thing is false Whichever one of these 3 possibilities it is, one thing is certain. Other than the book of Revelations existing, we have no other sources or evidence to back it up as a credible holy prophecy. Since Revelations and the entire bible was written by people who were inspired by God, that would mean it is holy. Holy means fullness, purity, divinity, and God like. To different cultures and religions, God and the bible are totally different. Some cultures believe in more than one God, some don't believe in any. Each one has their own view of the future. So how do we go about to discern which one is right? Not all religions can be right, so what d we have to base beliefs on? I use facts, evidence, and observation through experiences I have. Most religions claim they know the future, that their religion is holy and centered around a form of their own divine deity, so what does Revelations offer that makes it any more credible than another source of divine prophecy? 2. I am so sorry if I misjudged you. Please forgive me. I am glad that you question your faith from time to time. It most likely allows you to grow your faith stronger. If someone followed their faith 100% and didn't ever doubt at times, then that would show a lot about their intellect. -- Just because an intelligent person followed and studied the bible, it doesn't mean that they proved it to be legitimate. Sure there have been many intelligent Christians. (St. Augustine, etc.) There have also been intelligent atheists. (Richard Dawkins, etc) The fact that they are intelligent does not give legitimacy to their beliefs. St. Augustine wrote about God, studied God, and lived God through his faith and actions, he never gave proof of God. Intelligent theologians have based their lives on faith in God. It was their personal choice of lifestyle based on trust in God, not proof. 3. -- What you said in number 3, I believe helps prove my point. For example, in the boy who cried wolf, it teaches about how lying can get you into trouble. This is a great story to teach kids about the evils of lying. This book pertains to real life events, such as lying being a bad thing. It has literary aspects as well. However, this book is not talking about a real wolf, a real boy, and the village not responding the third time he cried. This book serves only 1 purpose: to teach a lesson. It's purely symbolic. Sure, there is a possibility this could have happened somewhere, just like there's a possibility that the bible events happened. However, neither book is based on substantial evidence. They both teach lessons, they are not credible sources of history or prophecy. ----The following is the three points on why Revelation is difficult to interpret.--- 1. You said, "it is important to understand those elements in order to fully understand the book." You can't take every culture in the world into account when interpreting the bible. That would mean you take into account thousands of interpretations. To some, the bible is meaningless. To others, it angers them, because it goes against their own beliefs. My point is, if culture affects opinions on whether revelations is true, which it does, then that means the story is gonna be seen differently depending on who you ask. If the view on the prophecy can be changed, then it is not a credible prophecy, it's a matter of opinion. Which brings me to what you said about opinion. You said, "Just because there is a contradiction of opinion in the world doesn't mean that there is no objective truth to be found among it all." Yes, we are talking about Revelations, and you're right, difference in opinion doesn't mean there is no objective truth. Revelations is an opinion, not evidence or divine prophecy. And just because there might be objective truth, doesn't mean each individual religion is true. And if there is one God, and let's say it's the Christian God, then why are there other religions? Isn't he universal? Some say, "Some people are either unaware of God or worship false Gods." Well who are they to say it's false? Other religions think that you might be worshiping a false God. And this cycle continues. So, where is any truth in all of this? There isn't, it's all faith in your own religion, which doesn't give that religion or the prophecies of that religion any credibility. 2. I did not say "anything is possible, so you can't be certain, so you're wrong." All I said was, " Yes, what you said about John is "possible", but it's also possible that they weren't visions. It's possible that he didn't even write it, and it's possible that nothing he said was true, so the fact that it's possible doesn't give revelations credibility as a prophetic book of future events." My point is that until some credible evidence is shown, there is no way you can believe in something. Otherwise, you could believe in millions of things. How is that impractical? Does a presidential candidate make claims in debates that have no evidence behind it? I never said anything is possible. I was trying to make a point that Revelations makes wild claims without any support. Yes, many things are possible, but evidence is what gives us truth in those possibilities, and since there is no evidence for Revelations' prophecies to come true, there is currently no truth in any future events described in Revelations. -- I'm confused on this point. John had a vision, but God gave it to him. John saw the visions himself, but he was being used. God guided the words, but John wrote it down. This makes no sense. Well, I am being inspired by God right now. He is telling me what to write. Ya, that doesn't sound very credible to me. -- Ok, maybe I'm not worthy to your God, but everyone else isn't worthy to mine. In my bible, it says that the end of the world will be mass chaos and all non believers will be sent to my God's version of hell. You probably don't agree with this, since there is no evidence for this and it goes against Revelations. See, there is no credibility in anything I just said, just like Revelations has no credibility. It's all "faith". Also, God leaving room for us as a way to hide proof of his existence is just another unbacked claim that religion uses to make itself seem more credible. It does not give Revelations any credibility as a prophetic book. -- You say, "God's son provides proof of his existence" No, Jesus was a man, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe he's the Son of God and maybe what he "inspired" in Revelations is true, but there is no evidence to support him, therefore, I don't. If he can show me some, then I'll believe. Afterall, God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. He can find way to show us he's real other than some man claiming he's his son. He's God, he can do anything. -- You said, "Does it really say that we are not supposed to test or doubt God?" Like I said before, I admire people who doubt faith. It shows they actually have intelligence and don't just follow something without searching for some answers. You said, "Am I going to read another book to tell me what Revelation is about? No, I'm going to read it and interpret it for what it says in it." Okay, fair enough, but just reading Revelations doesn't support it at all. The reason I think it's not prophecy is because it has no backup. I will go over the prophecies in the next round because I'm running out of characters. Thanks again