Conspiracy The mark of the beast revealed

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

The mark of the beast is what you get when you worship the beast with your thoughts and mind, and through the actions you do

Not retarded shit like chips and QR codes (although you avoid such things)

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

Oops! We ran into some problems.
Please select a prefix.

 

[Cortex]

 

[panchito]

then what w✡uld that mark be

 

[Pepsilord]

It's a mark on the soul, then? What supports this theory? (Other than that being the nature of sin, obviously)

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

It's a mark on the soul, then? What supports this theory? (Other than that being the nature of sin, obviously)

the entirity of revelation of is symbolic, so why is the mark of the beast not?

 

[baqqrih]

the entirity of revelation of is symbolic, so why is the mark of the beast not?

Where does it state that it’s symbolic?

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

Where does it state that it’s symbolic?

my brain

 

[Cortex]

Where does it state that it’s symbolic?

Things like the beast with seven horns rising out of the sea can be interpreted both ways.

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

Things like the beast with seven horns rising out of the sea can be interpreted both ways.

Worshipping the beast with 10 heads or whatever it is represents idolitary by worshipping multiple things of varying sinful nature and not worshipping the one true God.

 

[baqqrih]

Things like the beast with seven horns rising out of the sea can be interpreted both ways.

Well, I think one of those "ways" just seems retarded. How are we to decide what scriptures are and aren't "purely symbolic", if pure symbolism is all that some of them apparently are? What doofus thought of this? Are we to simply rely on imperfect human reason, on the natural notions of the inferior mind, to determine all of this? "Durr, I don't like what this really means, I'm just going to say it's a symbol now!" Absolute imbeciles.
>Ah, no, Jesus didn't actually feed a crowd of five thousand, that story was just symbolic.
>Nuh-uh, Saint Paul never actually said that there is one church, one faith, one baptism, and so on, he was just speaking in symbols.
>He didn't really say that women should keep their heads covered in the church, either, that was just some complex symbolism.
>No, God didn't literally create the Earth in seven days, it's just symbolism for some damn reason!
Do you see where we're arriving at with this attitude towards the scriptures? It's just Horseshit-Central, that's where this shoddily-made wagon-of-thought tumbles into. It's bogus, and it's a complete distortion of the truths given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ for the sake of the feeble human mind's appeasement so that we may find slothful, ignorant comfort in lies.

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

Well, I think one of those "ways" just seems retarded. How are we to decide what scriptures are and aren't "purely symbolic", if pure symbolism is all that some of them apparently are? What doofus thought of this? Are we to simply rely on imperfect human reason, on the natural notions of the inferior mind, to determine all of this? "Durr, I don't like what this really means, I'm just going to say it's a symbol now!" Absolute imbeciles.
>Ah, no, Jesus didn't actually feed a crowd of five thousand, that story was just symbolic.
>Nuh-uh, Saint Paul never actually said that there is one church, one faith, one baptism, and so on, he was just speaking in symbols.
>He didn't really say that women should keep their heads covered in the church, either, that was just some complex symbolism.
>No, God didn't literally create the Earth in seven days, it's just symbolism for some damn reason!
Do you see where we're arriving at with this attitude towards the scriptures? It's just Horseshit-Central, that's where this shoddily-made wagon-of-thought tumbles into. It's bogus, and it's a complete distortion of the truths given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ for the sake of the feeble human mind's appeasement so that we may find slothful, ignorant comfort in lies.

dnr

 

[1Based Frog1]

Well, I think one of those "ways" just seems retarded. How are we to decide what scriptures are and aren't "purely symbolic", if pure symbolism is all that some of them apparently are? What doofus thought of this? Are we to simply rely on imperfect human reason, on the natural notions of the inferior mind, to determine all of this? "Durr, I don't like what this really means, I'm just going to say it's a symbol now!" Absolute imbeciles.
>Ah, no, Jesus didn't actually feed a crowd of five thousand, that story was just symbolic.
>Nuh-uh, Saint Paul never actually said that there is one church, one faith, one baptism, and so on, he was just speaking in symbols.
>He didn't really say that women should keep their heads covered in the church, either, that was just some complex symbolism.
>No, God didn't literally create the Earth in seven days, it's just symbolism for some damn reason!
Do you see where we're arriving at with this attitude towards the scriptures? It's just Horseshit-Central, that's where this shoddily-made wagon-of-thought tumbles into. It's bogus, and it's a complete distortion of the truths given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ for the sake of the feeble human mind's appeasement so that we may find slothful, ignorant comfort in lies.

Exactly. If you start calling everything symbolic, there’s no foundation left. Everything becomes subjective, and you’re free to twist scripture however you like. It’s like saying, "Well, I don’t like this part, so I’ll just slap the 'symbolism' sticker on it and move on."

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

Well, I think one of those "ways" just seems retarded. How are we to decide what scriptures are and aren't "purely symbolic", if pure symbolism is all that some of them apparently are? What doofus thought of this? Are we to simply rely on imperfect human reason, on the natural notions of the inferior mind, to determine all of this? "Durr, I don't like what this really means, I'm just going to say it's a symbol now!" Absolute imbeciles.
>Ah, no, Jesus didn't actually feed a crowd of five thousand, that story was just symbolic.
>Nuh-uh, Saint Paul never actually said that there is one church, one faith, one baptism, and so on, he was just speaking in symbols.
>He didn't really say that women should keep their heads covered in the church, either, that was just some complex symbolism.
>No, God didn't literally create the Earth in seven days, it's just symbolism for some damn reason!
Do you see where we're arriving at with this attitude towards the scriptures? It's just Horseshit-Central, that's where this shoddily-made wagon-of-thought tumbles into. It's bogus, and it's a complete distortion of the truths given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ for the sake of the feeble human mind's appeasement so that we may find slothful, ignorant comfort in lies.

Exactly. If you start calling everything symbolic, there’s no foundation left. Everything becomes subjective, and you’re free to twist scripture however you like. It’s like saying, "Well, I don’t like this part, so I’ll just slap the 'symbolism' sticker on it and move on."

Yeah jesus having swords out of his mouth and being a lamb isnt at all symbolic.

you are retarded if you think the bible has no symbolism in it

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

Exactly. If you start calling everything symbolic, there’s no foundation left. Everything becomes subjective, and you’re free to twist scripture however you like. It’s like saying, "Well, I don’t like this part, so I’ll just slap the 'symbolism' sticker on it and move on."

if you think the mark of the beast is a fucking QR code tatoo then you are braindead

 

[1Based Frog1]

Yeah jesus having swords out of his mouth and being a lamb isnt all symbolic.

you are retarded if you think the bible has no symbolism in it

There’s a difference between recognizing symbolism where it’s clearly intended and dismissing everything as symbolic just because you don’t like the literal meaning.

Jesus having a sword coming out of his mouth is obviously symbolic. It represents his Word, sharper than any two-edged sword. But when Christ says something like, “This is My body,” or when Scripture records actual events like the feeding of the five thousand, you don’t just get to hand-wave that as “symbolism” because it doesn’t fit your worldview. There's a line between interpreting scripture faithfully and twisting it to suit your convenience.

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

There’s a difference between recognizing symbolism where it’s clearly intended and dismissing everything as symbolic just because you don’t like the literal meaning.

Jesus having a sword coming out of his mouth is obviously symbolic. It represents his Word, sharper than any two-edged sword. But when Christ says something like, “This is My body,” or when Scripture records actual events like the feeding of the five thousand, you don’t just get to hand-wave that as “symbolism” because it doesn’t fit your worldview. There's a line between interpreting scripture faithfully and twisting it to suit your convenience.

dnr

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

There’s a difference between recognizing symbolism where it’s clearly intended and dismissing everything as symbolic just because you don’t like the literal meaning.

Jesus having a sword coming out of his mouth is obviously symbolic. It represents his Word, sharper than any two-edged sword. But when Christ says something like, “This is My body,” or when Scripture records actual events like the feeding of the five thousand, you don’t just get to hand-wave that as “symbolism” because it doesn’t fit your worldview. There's a line between interpreting scripture faithfully and twisting it to suit your convenience.

so the sword is symbolic but the 666 mark is literal?

kys

 

[1Based Frog1]

so the sword is symbolic but the 666 mark is literal?

kys

The sword is symbolic because the Bible explicitly uses it as a metaphor for the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). The mark of the beast is described as something that can be touched and is tied to buying and selling, which implies a physical thing.

 

[baqqrih]

Yeah jesus having swords out of his mouth and being a lamb isnt at all symbolic.

you are retarded if you think the bible has no symbolism in it

We aren't denying symbolism, we're denying the cogency of labeling an entire book of scripture as pure symbolism like you've done in describing the Book of Revelation.

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

The sword is symbolic because the Bible explicitly uses it as a metaphor for the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). The mark of the beast is described as something that can be touched and is tied to buying and selling, which implies a physical thing.

do physical things not have symbolic meaning?

my cock (physical thing) in your moms mouth (also physical) symbolises i mog you

 

[Dremora]

>He didn't really say that women should keep their heads covered in the church, either, that was just some complex symbolism.

Just gonna chime in to say that Paul not only said that women should cover their hair in church, but also the church fathers said that women should cover their heads all the time, even outside of church. This was the norm throughout Christian history until this faggotry called wimin's wrights came in. Even face veiling, similar to the islamic niqab, was very common in christian societies.

 

[Cortex]

Are there any books in the Bible that are explicitly meant to be taken as symbolism?

 

[baqqrih]

do physical things not have symbolic meaning?

I am proud of you. You've regressed on your point (therefore abandoning it) by now acknowledging that the mark is physical, so I am glad that you know the truth after all. That's how most theories of such an absurd nature as the one you proposed earlier, of the mark being intangible, should be treated; thrown away like garbage once their lack of worth is so-easily proven.

 

[baqqrih]

Are there any books in the Bible that are explicitly meant to be taken as symbolism?

None of them are purely symbolic, but symbolism is still an important part of scripture.