Pity for the christards that Greek does not translate word-for-word into English.    Of course, it takes real chutzpah* to think that the Greeks would have given a rat's patootie about English which did not even exist at the time.


*Chutzpah - another word better described than defined.

(December 17, 2015 at 2:30 pm)Lek Wrote:

(December 16, 2015 at 9:38 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Which of course leads to the question of what does "eternal" mean in plain English?



So only the KJV translates the word as "everlasting" while everyone else goes with "eternal."  I submit the difference is inconsequential but it does suggest to me that you grasping at straws.

As usual.

The question isn't what does the word "eternal" mean, but rather what does the word "aionios" mean, because the verse was written in Greek, not English.  The word clearly has meaning other than the English word "eternal".  If someone goes to hell for a limited time and then is annihilated, his punishment is eternal even though he doesn't spend eternity in hell, but he is gone for eternity, which could support Drich's view.  On the other hand, Plato who is credited with likely inventing the word, used aionious in referring to certain souls in Hades who are to return to earth - hardly an eternal punishment.  Plato saw aionios punishment as always being of God, with any punishment of God (who is eternal) as having eternal consequences.  When speaking of the gods, who were eternal, he used a different Greek word - "aidios", which referred to them living eternally versus using aionios, belonging to time, when speaking of humanity.  Anyway, the bible speaks clearly that Jesus came to save the "world".  That's all of us.

Which Greek alphabet is the word written in?

(December 18, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Pity for the christards that Greek does not translate word-for-word into English.    Of course, it takes real chutzpah* to think that the Greeks would have given a rat's patootie about English which did not even exist at the time.


*Chutzpah - another word better described than defined.

Is it a Jewish story written by Greeks or is it a Jewish story written by Jews in Greek?  There's too many Greeks in it.

(December 18, 2015 at 11:38 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(December 18, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Pity for the christards that Greek does not translate word-for-word into English.    Of course, it takes real chutzpah* to think that the Greeks would have given a rat's patootie about English which did not even exist at the time.


*Chutzpah - another word better described than defined.

Is it a Jewish story written by Greeks or is it a Jewish story written by Jews in Greek?  There's too many Greeks in it.

What about the romans as well....

The bible it's not inerrant it's complicated and  wrong.

(December 14, 2015 at 6:15 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Well, here's a fact cheer you up.  Jesus isn't real.

(I still think you're a Poe.)

This OP is a little more obviously an awful attempt at satire.

I don't find Jesus, as written, to even be much of a role model. To make him seem "good" requires selective reading. He comes across more like someone who has some sort of split personality, and some very strange but occasionally nice ideas.

(December 19, 2015 at 4:29 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't find Jesus, as written, to even be much of a role model. To make him seem "good" requires selective reading. He comes across more like someone who has some sort of split personality, and some very strange but occasionally nice ideas.

Jesus is OK with Jews gouging Gentiles with high interest rates.  That's not very nice.

Yeah, some of his ideas are nice. Some of them are stupid and immoral. We only ever get the nice ones quoted, and often out of context.

(December 19, 2015 at 6:04 am)robvalue Wrote: Yeah, some of his ideas are nice. Some of them are stupid and immoral. We only ever get the nice ones quoted, and often out of context.

That is why I recommend Victor Stenger's book "The New Atheism", not for those who accept it or have already read it, but for both atheists and believers.

Common arguments from empathetic liberal believers I have seen in a couple of forums in an attempt to explain all the different religions.

1. "Religion is universal, most people believe..........."

2. "That is simply god speaking in different languages"

Even what people claim to be the "atheistic" religions of Asia are still religions. They are also attempts to explain our species behaviors.

Stenger's book explains all the common ideas and motifs religions claim that explain good and moral. He rightfully challenges the reader to consider that if we are all capable of good and empathy, then we need to consider that our good acts are not coming from a book, but humans falsely take the evolutionary good side of our species and create gap answers in the form of holy books and religion.

Yes you can find stories of kindness and ideas of caring for others in all the word's religions. Unfortunately while those things do foster order because most humans don't have a global view or natural understanding, those acts of kindness and motifs of compassion for others gets distorted to unrealistic fantastic explanations like we find Luke Sky Walker good and Yoda good and find Darth Vader bad, while another group will find Captain Kirk good and Khan bad. Bot camps have their heros and villains, but in religion, it goes beyond mere taste and these claims of antiquity get political and for whatever good people can point to in any religion, it does not resolve our divisions.

I really do love liberals being one myself and liberal theists as well. They reflect the good side of evolution. However, where my well intended liberal friends fail, is that they hide behind those arguments above. Religion is only universal in the context that it is a natural flaw in our species perceptions. Just like it was understandable that the Egyptians falsely gap filled which resulted to them truly believing that Ra was the head god who controlled the sun. Religion is only natural like a placebo or sugar pill. But it also unfortunately sets up the in group vs out group that divides humans and also allows us too come to bad conclusions.

Be kind to your neighbor, feed the poor you can find those motifs in Jewish, and Christian and Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism ect ect ect, they just have different words and different icons in their holy writings all claiming too be the gatekeepers of what constitutes wisdom and good. When you see a domestic house cat on youtube defend a kid from a dog attacking the kid and chase it away, it becomes quite obvious where empathy comes from, evolution.

Indeed yes, empathy comes from evolution. However, to the untrained eye, it seems like magic. "Why would I care about anyone else? I wouldn't! But I do, so it's magic!"

Pure ignorance.

I was looking at a few other religions with my wife the last few days, and found out that almost every Eastern religion seems to work around karma and reincarnation. There seems to always be this common thread of a reward for behaviour in this life, which you get in the next. I wonder if there are any religions which advise you to be good just to be good and not because the nature of your reward hinges upon it.

We looked briefly at Jainism, which I said to my wife was one of the least offensive religions. Funnily enough we found out it has a lot of sexism and bizarre ideas about women, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Sexism and homophobia are only recently being addressed (and still not fully) so any even vaguely old religion is going to have such crap in it.

Jainism also had the reincarnation crap, but interestingly it seemed to claim that karma actually has physical particles which attach themselves to your soul according to your actions. Very odd for a religion to make a claim about reality. I'm not sure how they answer the question of why this is obviously false.