Revelations is not a book of prophecy.

I must mention to the viewers that I do not intend to argue in circles or restate myself redundantly, or restate myself redundantly. But, this can sometimes be tempting to do if you feel like your opponent does not address an important point you made. However, I hope to avoid redundancy and simply trust in the viewers that they will observe such points that are neglected and left unchallenged and that those points and what I say will stand for itself. Note: I am going to be switching my narration to speaking about my opponent in the third person instead of second because I realize this is a more common and accepted way of debating. 1. Here, my opponent has said that "general statements about the future are not very credible. " Think about this though. It is most often that specific statements about the future are the least credible and have been the least credible throughout history and even in our present day. From time to time people have somehow latched on to a certain date, being sure that that is the date the world is ending or Jesus is coming back ect. But they have all been wrong; also, they have all been very specific. For a present day example, economists know that the United States economy is most likely going to collapse – it's showing all the initial signs, but what they don't know is exactly when it's going to. In that case as well, it is the general statement that is the most credible and likely, not the least. In the latter half of this point my opponent reiterates a cycle of questions that appear very consistently as the main body of his arguments. These points generally have this idea, "to different cultures and religions, God and the bible are totally different. " It is my perspective that this is an attempt to trivialize truth, as does any postmodern-like belief. I have already said that the point of a debate is to move towards a truth, not away from it. But I also understand that for people to whom truth is relative (postmodernists in particular), the point of a debate may very well be to move away from truth and generalize it all. However, though I understand such a postmodernist agenda, I reject it as either practical or worthy of belief in. I will also note that because these same questions and general points to trivialize truth (to his own agenda selectively of at least reducing the credibility of Revelation) seem to repeat throughout my opponent's arguments, I will give more of my perspective on the same matter throughout this round. My opponent said, "so what does Revelations offer that makes it any more credible than another source of divine prophecy? " Well, what other sources of divine prophecy are there? Assuming that Christianity is the one true religion and that all the others are made up, why would made up ones claim any sort of authority of prophecy? What I'm getting at is, and I may be corrected as wrong, but what other religions not based on the historical figure of Jesus Christ have prophecies? I would like my opponent to provide the names of these religions and an overview of their prophecies. 2. There is much common ground I can find with my opponent on this point. I may add that I don't only question my faith "from time to time" but rather quite frequently. I believe this is the way to live the Christian life. Did Jesus rebuke "doubting Thomas" for doubting? No. He showed him his hands and the proof. I believe, though it can be difficult, that he will still do the same for us today. If we have the audacity to doubt and to truly seek answers and evidence God will provide it – and he has been for me to this day. (Also see A. W. Tozer quote in 2nd round) My opponent has said, "Just because an intelligent person followed and studied the bible, it doesn't mean that they proved it to be legitimate. " And "It was their personal choice of lifestyle based on trust in God, not proof. " Because an "intelligent" person does any thing does not make it legitimate. But I must add the insight here: No person is purely intellectual. I believe that God created us both rational and emotional beings (even an atheist can see this is true even if they don't accept God created us). Because God created us both rational and emotional beings and he created us for him, we ought to seek to use both sides of us to find him, love him, and know him. The rational side is the reasoning side, the evidence begging side. The emotional side is the side that determines will, bias and resolve. The distinction I wish to make is that being intelligent will only get you half way there with God. My hypothesis of atheists (and I must say I've debated and talked to a handful of them at length on these matters) is that many of them appear intelligent and to have intelligent reasons for their unbelief – but the truth is that they, like all human beings, are both rational and emotional; the clincher is that they have probably overemphasized their rational side while neglecting their emotional side. That is my general take on atheism. Obviously a general take on anything does not serve all cases justice. How an atheist comes to that imbalance between their rationality and emotions is a toss up. The most common I imagine and have observed is that they are hurt early on in life (and especially though not always with anything in relation to religion) and learn to close off their emotional side because they learned it was too painful to embrace. I firmly believe in using both faith and reason, trust and evidence. I criticize (though also sympathize because I can often imagine what might lead atheists to become how they are) atheists because they seem intellectually dishonest because they are not balanced. They don't often account for the will/emotions/bias side of things. Humans have been made with a will. If you think you don't have a will, bias, or emotions, you are fooling yourself. You are not as rational as you think. But what this ends up doing is making people say they reject God for impersonal intellectual reasons when if you have enough insight you can see that they are merely intellectual smokescreens for personal (and often buried and unaddressed and thus unanswered) emotional pain. My balanced thesis (if I may have the arrogance to say so) is that so-called "proof" and evidence (evidence, I believe, exists more than proof) will only get you half way there so to speak. The other part is of the will, the emotions. That explains why intelligent people can have very opposite religious views. I believe the band Sum 41's song "So Long Goodbye" puts this idea well: " Matters of heart are hard to address Especially when yours is full of emptiness" And, dare I say it, God is definitely something that is a matter of heart contrary to popular atheistic belief. But, like I've already said, it's a two sided thing. You can't be too willful and emotional (which gets the criticism of the label of "blind faith"), and on the other side, we'd do well not to deceive ourselves that we are purely rational beings (which gets the criticism of "being heartless" or emotionally dishonest and blind). Final note on this point: This point also covers many common points discussed throughout the debate. Note that I am answering those points, though out of order, by topic rather than the debate's number. --Three points on why Revelation is difficult to interpret. -- 1. My opponent has said, "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. " I believe this is a misinterpretation of my point. I was explaining that it is necessary to view a book in its historical context to more fully understand it. However, my opponent has confused this with our present day context for the story. Out of Characters. Will address remaining points next rnd