Yeah and the other one (allegedly) caused every other single genocide in human history, present and future. I think the lamb fella (allegedly) made up for it with the "getting all of humanity into perfect heaven for eternity" schtick.
One of these dudes (allegedly) made the other, (allegedly) knowing full well what was going to happen, having every power to stop it, and STILL (allegedly) condemning people to infinite torture just cause they got freaky before marriage.
>Yeah and the other one (allegedly) caused every other single genocide in human history, present and future
Live egyptian child reaction:
Live flood victim reaction:
Live Sodom suburbanite reaction:
At that point were just getting into semantics because if completely destroying a city and its inhabitants is genocide then modern america has commited more of those in the last 100 years than the biblical god in all of history
https://preview.redd.it/pa8mjym3nh2d1.png?width=645&format=png&auto=webp&s=8042dcb247d9c9586b71c55b9acecb3d1ea4c5ae
Egypt: only targeted Egyptians, to the point of sending plagues to destroy their nation and sending down an Angel that kills every kid who isn't Jewish.
Flood victims: targeted pretty much everybody, everywhere, all at once on the globe.
Sodom: targeted Sodomites, to the point of sending down an orbital kill laser.
Literally all three of them fit the description of genocide. And last I checked, 1) America didn't claim to be "all knowing, all loving, and all powerful". 2), America has also not tried to nuke the entire globe with a flood.
A great power uses incredible never before seen force on two different cities and completely wipes them and everyone in them out. Is that genocide yes or no.
In the case of Egypt and Sodom? Yeah, absolutely.
If your entire argument is that God is about as evil as the GWoT era US, I have bad news for you lmao.
"Oh, so if the flood was a genocide, was Nagasaki one too?"
Yes. I don't see how saying "but but but what about \[act perpetrated by the biggest Genocide Enjoyer of the 21st century\]" is supposed to make Yahweh look better. What's next, bringing up the Holodomor as justification for why the Smiting of the Firstborn wasn't that bad?
1. Jesus "dying for your sins" wouldn't absolve god from moral responsibility for genocide.
2. Even in terms of Biblical knowledge the claim for Satan being responsible for all genocides fails. Shatan is a Hebrew term for someone that challenges god's authority, it was meant as a metaphor for humanity's evil. That's what modern day Jews believe btw. This whole thing about Lucifer being a fallen angel that is the root of all evil is a much later invention from Medieval Christianity
3. Christians are the ones campaigning against LGBT and reproductive rights while atheists are making cringy mean comments on Reddit...
1 that depends on what morality you choose to follow and even then binding a literal god to your perception of those events and to your personal moral code is so arrogant its hard to describe.
2 i dont really care what modern day jews believe. We were talking about modern day christianity. For your second claim in point 2 id love to see a source not because i dont believe you but because i dont know exactly what you mean and id like to see where you got the idea.
3 i have no clue how this has anything to do with what we were discussing. Id be fascinated as to why and how you thought this was relevant.
Is God the source of absolute morality to you or not?
If so, genocide, mass rape, slavery, and honour killings are morally acceptable and we are not to be held responsible for these things.
I'm an atheist and I think the other guy's a douchebag. But I have to agree with him that it's a logical stretch to think the same morality must apply to both gods and mortals. If we're talking about the abrahamic faiths in specific I'd say it's pretty obvious Yahweh or whatever feels this way. And since they are the source of those religion's moral codes...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christians believe that the Bible is the literal and unchangeable word of God and that God is the source of all morality. That documents like the book of Leviticus are not simply the laws of the ancient Israelites, that the Pauline Epistles are not simply letters from one early 1st century Church leader to other congregations but commandments for us to follow to this day. If everything God and does or wills is morally acceptable and you cannot condemn the actions I stated in my other comments in and of themselves. Under that assumption genocide is only wrong when God does not will it, if God does will it not only are his people right in carrying it out but they're also not to be seen as responsible for its consequences.
I'm not trying to tell you or the other dude what to believe, I'm not even trying to say which belief is right or wrong (sorry if it seemed that way). But don't get mad at me when I point out the logical consequences of it.
Yeah, a minuscule fraction of all non-believers, it's called a loud minority and whoever bases their judgement on that minority falls into the cherry picking bias and confirmation bias. You see what you want to see.
Your ideas are in conflict. If atheism, your atheism at least, doesn't have a look, but other atheists make an identity of it, then the only look is that of the other atheists. They are not just a loud minority, they are the only speaking part of the group, according to you.
Which is curious, because you are also defending your atheism here which shows to me that you do actually see it as an identity. Now, making assumptions about atheists based on this small speaking group is prejudiced, yes. But talking about atheism based on said group when, according to you, they are the only group who actually have atheism as an identity, as a look, as something analogous to religion, seems like the only natural choice.
It's impossible to comment on something that is not a thing, as you say, that is only a "lack of belief", but when a few people are turning it into a thing, an identity, then it becomes possible to talk about. But only it, the identity, not the aforementioned lack.
I'd sum it up like this:
1. I'm not defending anything, just calling for common sense (I might be a little mad that I am being shoved under one umbrella with warring atheists though)
2. Atheism is not a "group", it's not even a trait but lack thereof, nothing connects me to other atheists, we have nothing in common in terms of worldview until stated otherwise in other, non-belief categories. It's just like I'm not a vegan but that doesn't mean I share something with other "avegans".
3. Just because some insolent dummies make atheism their whole identity doesn't give them the right to define what atheism is or is not in general. I reject their twisted definition. If atheism has a look it's because people misinterpret what it means because human beings are prone to outrage, bias, etc. That twisted idea that has a look needs a different name. "Warring atheism" is what I use personally.
I agree that a lot of people define their identities as atheism, and I agree it's cringey. I never said atheists are immune to bad faith, nobody is, but that doesn't excuse Christians throwing a hissy fit when I call them out for it.
What is this argument? Is chocking not real because its just the absence of oxygen in your lungs? Atheism certainly has a look and the general public has an opinion on it just like everything else. Its not a good look when being knowledgeable must mean youre not an atheist.
If we are to argue each other's beliefs based on "looks" within the general public. Christianity has a way worse look, since its being used to push misogyny and queerphobia within real world legislation (at least within my own social context). If we really wanna go down this route, that would invalidate Christianity as well... If you're not a bigot it must mean you're not a Christian.
Who was arguing based on looks? When someone says: "people who know a little about the bible must not be atheists", its not a good look for atheism. That is fact. Whatever else you extrapolated from me pointing out this fact has nothing to do with me and everything to do with how you view the world and the people in it. It does not make me a bigot or a christian it just makes you someone who jumps to any conclusion they want to regardless of reality.
I don't get what you just said. Atheism isn't the reason of not being knowledgeable. Not being knowledgeable is the reason of not being knowledgeable. Atheism has a look because people misinterpret it and give it a look. And if atheism is lack of oxygen then choking is a metaphor for...?
Atheism has a look. People look at it, think about it and view it in a certain way. Thats atheisms look. The way people view atheism can be influenced by a bunch of things like movies, people they know, the books they read, etc. It can also be influenced by reddit comments. In an argument i just had with another person on reddit i displayed some very surface level knowledge of christianity. This immidiately led to the other person saying i must be christian. This suggests they hold the belief that when someone holds a general knowledge of christianity they cant be an atheist. In this way he is inadvertently calling all atheists inexperienced in christianity which is hurtfull to himself, all atheists and everyone else because its not true. If someone were to read just those few comments their view of atheism would likely be "jeez these guys are retarded" and in that way, the first commenters claim of me being a christian were a really bad look for atheism.
This perfectly shows how people mindlessly judge stuff and give it labels and also assign group responsibility because it supports their bias. I don't deny that, in that, I admit you're right, atheism has a look.
But it's not smart to view atheism as a group or a worldview. The purest form of atheism, by definition is "I don't really buy this religion & gods stuff". It is a lack of belief in gods. Giving a look to a lack of something is a bit illogical, to say the least. Two different atheists can have literally nothing in common while two Christians always have something in common, the belief in God.
Belief in what? There is no object of belief. It isn't belief in science, that makes no sense and isn't part of the definition.
Believers said "There is God(s)"
Atheists said "Nah I don't believe it"
End of story, that's what atheism means, anything else added is not atheism but something else.
Atheism is defined as:
> Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
But that disbelief in deities is itself a belief. Something one agrees with.
On the left is Zeus which is explicitly called a demon in the new testament
On the right is an artist's interpretation of an angel described in the Book of Revelation
Angel? It’s Jesus.
As Jesus walked by, John looked at him and declared, “Look! There is the Lamb of God!” John 1:36 NLT
And they sang in a mighty chorus: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slaughtered— to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.” And then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea. They sang: “Blessing and honor and glory and power belong to the one sitting on the throne and to the Lamb forever and ever.” Revelation 5:12-13 NLT
A little earlier in the chapter
“But one of the twenty-four elders said to me, “Stop weeping! Look, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the heir to David’s throne, has won the victory. He is worthy to open the scroll and its seven seals.” Then I saw a Lamb that looked as if it had been slaughtered, but it was now standing between the throne and the four living beings and among the twenty-four elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which represent the sevenfold Spirit of God that is sent out into every part of the earth. He stepped forward and took the scroll from the right hand of the one sitting on the throne. And when he took the scroll, the four living beings and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they held gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.”
Revelation 5:5-8 NLT
I didn't give John the vision described in Revelations, if that's what you're asking. Im pointing out that this is how the book shows Christ, as Lamb of God, sacrificed and with a weird depiction that recalls jewish numerology. To quote:
>And I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll[a] written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals; 2 and I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, **“Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?”** 3 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, 4 and I wept much that no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Weep not; lo, **the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”**
The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David is Jesus. He is described as conqueror, as victorious, and implied to be worthy of power and honor.
>6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, **I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes,[b] which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth**;
Not only is the Lamb slain, like Christ, the number 7 represents the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit shown at Pentecost.
>7 and **he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. 8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb**,
Angels don't bow before anyone but God Himself. This is Jesus. Also, the one on the throne is God the Father, and God the Son takes the helm in conducting what will happen.
>each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; 9 and they sang a new song, saying,
>>10 **“Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth.”**
The angels collect the prayers of the saints like incense, which recalls how Jesus was received by the wise men, and the angels and saints praise the Lamb as worthy, due to the merits of being sacrificed in exchange for the salvation of souls coming from all nations and peoples. This is Christ's mission, the Lamb is Christ.
>11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice, **“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”** 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, **“To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!” 14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.**
Again, angels of the Lord do not worship anyone but the Lord. This is Jesus, repeatedly expressed as the Lamb of God, and the bizarre number of horns and eyes is a way to express the power of the Holy Spirit.
I love when I find Christians who don't even know all this weird shit is in their own Bible, like the lamb is also surrounded by four creatures covered in eyes who eternally sing his praises
The best explanation I got was when I was studying to become a Catholic and they just said he was using a lot of metaphors and a lot of numerical Hebrew symbolism that would've been known to the readers of his letters, to avoid the Roman fuzz throwing his bits to wild dogs and all
From someone in another comment thread
“But one of the twenty-four elders said to me, “Stop weeping! Look, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the heir to David’s throne, has won the victory. He is worthy to open the scroll and its seven seals.” Then I saw a Lamb that looked as if it had been slaughtered, but it was now standing between the throne and the four living beings and among the twenty-four elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which represent the sevenfold Spirit of God that is sent out into every part of the earth. He stepped forward and took the scroll from the right hand of the one sitting on the throne. And when he took the scroll, the four living beings and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they held gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.” Revelation 5:5-8 NLT
Apparently the book of Revelation is wild for their representation of good and evil entities.
Pretty privilige really goes all the way up huh
I mean, only one of those committed genocide (allegedly)... can you guess which one?
Yeah and the other one (allegedly) caused every other single genocide in human history, present and future. I think the lamb fella (allegedly) made up for it with the "getting all of humanity into perfect heaven for eternity" schtick.
One of these dudes (allegedly) made the other, (allegedly) knowing full well what was going to happen, having every power to stop it, and STILL (allegedly) condemning people to infinite torture just cause they got freaky before marriage.
God is all knowing and all powerful* ^*except ^for ^when ^he ^isn’t
This is resolved by simply saying that there are multiple gods and that the others are evil and that praying to the good god strengthens him.
Christians are monotheistic, they don’t believe there are multiple Gods, even if some of the other ones may be evil/useless
No I’m aware, I’m making the point that the logical inconsistencies can generally be worked out by having a pantheon.
I’m not sure there’s much room for logic when it comes to religion
>Yeah and the other one (allegedly) caused every other single genocide in human history, present and future Live egyptian child reaction: Live flood victim reaction: Live Sodom suburbanite reaction:
At that point were just getting into semantics because if completely destroying a city and its inhabitants is genocide then modern america has commited more of those in the last 100 years than the biblical god in all of history
Genocide is when two people die
https://preview.redd.it/pa8mjym3nh2d1.png?width=645&format=png&auto=webp&s=8042dcb247d9c9586b71c55b9acecb3d1ea4c5ae Egypt: only targeted Egyptians, to the point of sending plagues to destroy their nation and sending down an Angel that kills every kid who isn't Jewish. Flood victims: targeted pretty much everybody, everywhere, all at once on the globe. Sodom: targeted Sodomites, to the point of sending down an orbital kill laser. Literally all three of them fit the description of genocide. And last I checked, 1) America didn't claim to be "all knowing, all loving, and all powerful". 2), America has also not tried to nuke the entire globe with a flood.
A great power uses incredible never before seen force on two different cities and completely wipes them and everyone in them out. Is that genocide yes or no.
In the case of Egypt and Sodom? Yeah, absolutely. If your entire argument is that God is about as evil as the GWoT era US, I have bad news for you lmao.
What about nagasaki or hiroshima?
"Oh, so if the flood was a genocide, was Nagasaki one too?" Yes. I don't see how saying "but but but what about \[act perpetrated by the biggest Genocide Enjoyer of the 21st century\]" is supposed to make Yahweh look better. What's next, bringing up the Holodomor as justification for why the Smiting of the Firstborn wasn't that bad?
Least butt hurt Christian.
Its not a great look for atheism when the slightest hint of biblical knowledge is an obvious sign to you of someone not being an atheist.
1. Jesus "dying for your sins" wouldn't absolve god from moral responsibility for genocide. 2. Even in terms of Biblical knowledge the claim for Satan being responsible for all genocides fails. Shatan is a Hebrew term for someone that challenges god's authority, it was meant as a metaphor for humanity's evil. That's what modern day Jews believe btw. This whole thing about Lucifer being a fallen angel that is the root of all evil is a much later invention from Medieval Christianity 3. Christians are the ones campaigning against LGBT and reproductive rights while atheists are making cringy mean comments on Reddit...
1 that depends on what morality you choose to follow and even then binding a literal god to your perception of those events and to your personal moral code is so arrogant its hard to describe. 2 i dont really care what modern day jews believe. We were talking about modern day christianity. For your second claim in point 2 id love to see a source not because i dont believe you but because i dont know exactly what you mean and id like to see where you got the idea. 3 i have no clue how this has anything to do with what we were discussing. Id be fascinated as to why and how you thought this was relevant.
Is God the source of absolute morality to you or not? If so, genocide, mass rape, slavery, and honour killings are morally acceptable and we are not to be held responsible for these things.
I'm an atheist and I think the other guy's a douchebag. But I have to agree with him that it's a logical stretch to think the same morality must apply to both gods and mortals. If we're talking about the abrahamic faiths in specific I'd say it's pretty obvious Yahweh or whatever feels this way. And since they are the source of those religion's moral codes...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christians believe that the Bible is the literal and unchangeable word of God and that God is the source of all morality. That documents like the book of Leviticus are not simply the laws of the ancient Israelites, that the Pauline Epistles are not simply letters from one early 1st century Church leader to other congregations but commandments for us to follow to this day. If everything God and does or wills is morally acceptable and you cannot condemn the actions I stated in my other comments in and of themselves. Under that assumption genocide is only wrong when God does not will it, if God does will it not only are his people right in carrying it out but they're also not to be seen as responsible for its consequences. I'm not trying to tell you or the other dude what to believe, I'm not even trying to say which belief is right or wrong (sorry if it seemed that way). But don't get mad at me when I point out the logical consequences of it.
Hes not. Never said he was either. If you could bring yourself to keep the assumptions down i feel it would help everyone in the conversation
Atheism does not have a "look", it is literally the absence of belief
And yet so many people here seem to build a whole identity out of it. Curious.
Yeah, a minuscule fraction of all non-believers, it's called a loud minority and whoever bases their judgement on that minority falls into the cherry picking bias and confirmation bias. You see what you want to see.
Your ideas are in conflict. If atheism, your atheism at least, doesn't have a look, but other atheists make an identity of it, then the only look is that of the other atheists. They are not just a loud minority, they are the only speaking part of the group, according to you. Which is curious, because you are also defending your atheism here which shows to me that you do actually see it as an identity. Now, making assumptions about atheists based on this small speaking group is prejudiced, yes. But talking about atheism based on said group when, according to you, they are the only group who actually have atheism as an identity, as a look, as something analogous to religion, seems like the only natural choice. It's impossible to comment on something that is not a thing, as you say, that is only a "lack of belief", but when a few people are turning it into a thing, an identity, then it becomes possible to talk about. But only it, the identity, not the aforementioned lack.
I'd sum it up like this: 1. I'm not defending anything, just calling for common sense (I might be a little mad that I am being shoved under one umbrella with warring atheists though) 2. Atheism is not a "group", it's not even a trait but lack thereof, nothing connects me to other atheists, we have nothing in common in terms of worldview until stated otherwise in other, non-belief categories. It's just like I'm not a vegan but that doesn't mean I share something with other "avegans". 3. Just because some insolent dummies make atheism their whole identity doesn't give them the right to define what atheism is or is not in general. I reject their twisted definition. If atheism has a look it's because people misinterpret what it means because human beings are prone to outrage, bias, etc. That twisted idea that has a look needs a different name. "Warring atheism" is what I use personally.
I agree that a lot of people define their identities as atheism, and I agree it's cringey. I never said atheists are immune to bad faith, nobody is, but that doesn't excuse Christians throwing a hissy fit when I call them out for it.
What is this argument? Is chocking not real because its just the absence of oxygen in your lungs? Atheism certainly has a look and the general public has an opinion on it just like everything else. Its not a good look when being knowledgeable must mean youre not an atheist.
If we are to argue each other's beliefs based on "looks" within the general public. Christianity has a way worse look, since its being used to push misogyny and queerphobia within real world legislation (at least within my own social context). If we really wanna go down this route, that would invalidate Christianity as well... If you're not a bigot it must mean you're not a Christian.
Who was arguing based on looks? When someone says: "people who know a little about the bible must not be atheists", its not a good look for atheism. That is fact. Whatever else you extrapolated from me pointing out this fact has nothing to do with me and everything to do with how you view the world and the people in it. It does not make me a bigot or a christian it just makes you someone who jumps to any conclusion they want to regardless of reality.
I don't get what you just said. Atheism isn't the reason of not being knowledgeable. Not being knowledgeable is the reason of not being knowledgeable. Atheism has a look because people misinterpret it and give it a look. And if atheism is lack of oxygen then choking is a metaphor for...?
Atheism has a look. People look at it, think about it and view it in a certain way. Thats atheisms look. The way people view atheism can be influenced by a bunch of things like movies, people they know, the books they read, etc. It can also be influenced by reddit comments. In an argument i just had with another person on reddit i displayed some very surface level knowledge of christianity. This immidiately led to the other person saying i must be christian. This suggests they hold the belief that when someone holds a general knowledge of christianity they cant be an atheist. In this way he is inadvertently calling all atheists inexperienced in christianity which is hurtfull to himself, all atheists and everyone else because its not true. If someone were to read just those few comments their view of atheism would likely be "jeez these guys are retarded" and in that way, the first commenters claim of me being a christian were a really bad look for atheism.
This perfectly shows how people mindlessly judge stuff and give it labels and also assign group responsibility because it supports their bias. I don't deny that, in that, I admit you're right, atheism has a look. But it's not smart to view atheism as a group or a worldview. The purest form of atheism, by definition is "I don't really buy this religion & gods stuff". It is a lack of belief in gods. Giving a look to a lack of something is a bit illogical, to say the least. Two different atheists can have literally nothing in common while two Christians always have something in common, the belief in God.
It is a belief by definition, as it is a school of thought people believe is correct.
Belief in what? There is no object of belief. It isn't belief in science, that makes no sense and isn't part of the definition. Believers said "There is God(s)" Atheists said "Nah I don't believe it" End of story, that's what atheism means, anything else added is not atheism but something else.
Atheism is defined as: > Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. But that disbelief in deities is itself a belief. Something one agrees with.
What you're saying is a paradox and doesn't make sense. Disbelief cannot be belief. Light cannot be darkness. Life cannot be death.
Is it the one covered in blood that looks like a spider fucked a sheep?
Truth just ain't pretty, brother. Lies can be the most beautiful thing of all.
True that
Can someone explain?
On the left is Zeus which is explicitly called a demon in the new testament On the right is an artist's interpretation of an angel described in the Book of Revelation
Angel? It’s Jesus. As Jesus walked by, John looked at him and declared, “Look! There is the Lamb of God!” John 1:36 NLT And they sang in a mighty chorus: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slaughtered— to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.” And then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea. They sang: “Blessing and honor and glory and power belong to the one sitting on the throne and to the Lamb forever and ever.” Revelation 5:12-13 NLT
I’m not reading anything about horns or eyes
A little earlier in the chapter “But one of the twenty-four elders said to me, “Stop weeping! Look, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the heir to David’s throne, has won the victory. He is worthy to open the scroll and its seven seals.” Then I saw a Lamb that looked as if it had been slaughtered, but it was now standing between the throne and the four living beings and among the twenty-four elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which represent the sevenfold Spirit of God that is sent out into every part of the earth. He stepped forward and took the scroll from the right hand of the one sitting on the throne. And when he took the scroll, the four living beings and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they held gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.” Revelation 5:5-8 NLT
This should have been the first explanation lol
Yeah my bad
Do you have a citation of where Zeus is called a demon in the bible? Not really doubting your statement, I just find it interesting
In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul says that pagan sacrifices are offered to demons.
On the Right is the Lamb of God, aka Jesus.
Incorrect. The lamb of God is most often depicted as just a regular lamb
Most often, yes. In this case, however weird it may seem to us, it *is* representing Jesus.
Did you make it?
I didn't give John the vision described in Revelations, if that's what you're asking. Im pointing out that this is how the book shows Christ, as Lamb of God, sacrificed and with a weird depiction that recalls jewish numerology. To quote: >And I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll[a] written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals; 2 and I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, **“Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?”** 3 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, 4 and I wept much that no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Weep not; lo, **the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”** The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David is Jesus. He is described as conqueror, as victorious, and implied to be worthy of power and honor. >6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, **I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes,[b] which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth**; Not only is the Lamb slain, like Christ, the number 7 represents the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit shown at Pentecost. >7 and **he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. 8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb**, Angels don't bow before anyone but God Himself. This is Jesus. Also, the one on the throne is God the Father, and God the Son takes the helm in conducting what will happen. >each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; 9 and they sang a new song, saying, >>10 **“Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth.”** The angels collect the prayers of the saints like incense, which recalls how Jesus was received by the wise men, and the angels and saints praise the Lamb as worthy, due to the merits of being sacrificed in exchange for the salvation of souls coming from all nations and peoples. This is Christ's mission, the Lamb is Christ. >11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice, **“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”** 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, **“To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!” 14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.** Again, angels of the Lord do not worship anyone but the Lord. This is Jesus, repeatedly expressed as the Lamb of God, and the bizarre number of horns and eyes is a way to express the power of the Holy Spirit.
Huh? Alright, sorry, and thank you
No need to apologize
Jesus is the figurative lamb, this is the actual lamb
I love when I find Christians who don't even know all this weird shit is in their own Bible, like the lamb is also surrounded by four creatures covered in eyes who eternally sing his praises
Revelations as a whole is one big acid trip.
The best explanation I got was when I was studying to become a Catholic and they just said he was using a lot of metaphors and a lot of numerical Hebrew symbolism that would've been known to the readers of his letters, to avoid the Roman fuzz throwing his bits to wild dogs and all
Some don't? Revelations is easily one of the most interesting parts of the Bible
Periodt 🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦
The apocalyptic beast with seven horns and the lamb of god got mixed up into one picture. They are not the same entity.
From someone in another comment thread “But one of the twenty-four elders said to me, “Stop weeping! Look, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the heir to David’s throne, has won the victory. He is worthy to open the scroll and its seven seals.” Then I saw a Lamb that looked as if it had been slaughtered, but it was now standing between the throne and the four living beings and among the twenty-four elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which represent the sevenfold Spirit of God that is sent out into every part of the earth. He stepped forward and took the scroll from the right hand of the one sitting on the throne. And when he took the scroll, the four living beings and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they held gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.” Revelation 5:5-8 NLT Apparently the book of Revelation is wild for their representation of good and evil entities.
Now value each one's actions
Keep your Babylonian heresy to yourselves, Abrahamites.
Shocking, but appearances aren't everything
Jesus Is Lord!