Mary had a little lamb,
And was arrested for bestiality

(November 27, 2018 at 12:35 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote:

(November 27, 2018 at 10:56 am)Drich Wrote: I guess you do not know who Herod Archelaus was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus

He wasn't the "king of Judea" but an ethnarch. "Herod the King" is a clear reference to Herod the Great. Nice try. 

Pity you didn't read your own link. It would have cleared that up for you at the top of the page in the first sentence.

That's right! Antipas was the king, Herod the great's first son..

 ,

Herod Antipater (Greek: Ἡρῴδης Ἀντίπατρος, Hērǭdēs Antipatros; born before 20 BC – died after 39 AD), known by the nickname Antipas, was a 1st-century ruler of Galilee and Perea, who bore the title of tetrarch ("ruler of a quarter") and is referred to as both "Herod the Tetrarch"[1] and "King Herod"
Pity you didn't read my link. It would have cleared that up for you at the top of the page in the second sentence.

Quote: What would you consider better and why would it be an improvement?

I would consider it an improvement if a "god" could make his/her/its point without having to rely on the intricacies of various translations of human languages which, as you correctly point out, are open to interpretation.  The problem here is not that "god" spoke a particularly shitty dialect of Greek, it is that a "god" ( if there were such a being ) should not be constrained by it or anything else.

The stunning lack of evidence for any of the gods invented across the millennia by the human imagination has convinced me that all gods are bullshit.  Remember the wise words of Stephen Roberts.

(November 29, 2018 at 11:38 am)Drich Wrote:  Herod Antipas,

Neither Antipas nor Archelaus were kings of all of Judea. "King of Judea" is a reference to Herod the Great.

(November 29, 2018 at 12:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: What would you consider better and why would it be an improvement?

I would consider it an improvement if a "god" could make his/her/its point without having to rely on the intricacies of various translations of human languages which, as you correctly point out, are open to interpretation.  The problem here is not that "god" spoke a particularly shitty dialect of Greek, it is that a "god" ( if there were such a being ) should not be constrained by it or anything else.

The stunning lack of evidence for any of the gods invented across the millennia by the human imagination has convinced me that all gods are bullshit.  Remember the wise words of Stephen Roberts.

Any speech or form of symbol can be open to interpretation. But if your argument rests on you own interpretation of Greek, then maybe rethink your argument.  Greek is one of the primary languages that much of our English dictionary is based from.  So if it is flawed, then I would think those flaws would carry over into our English.  Yet, you seem to have no issues with wanting to use it to communicate.  Maybe specify your issues with that Greek dialect?  If not, we might as well start tossing out everything people like Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras said as well.

I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you, but your critique of a language is personal to you, but it's just an "opinion" about how the world exists (or existed).  Maybe changing things would make things feel better for you, but other people have no issue with the Greek language or who used it. Also, our feelings in the present don't determine how history played out and reality isn't normally determined by our personal comfort.

If you think something can be made better, maybe share HOW it could be better for the general consensus of the world's population, and very importantly, WHY your idea is better.

I think you may have missed the thrust there.  Whatever idea Min might have, it's generally accepted that some "god" could and would have a better one.  Lowly human worms that we are. 

So....it's easy to see how we can and have fucked the pooch, and maybe no one actually has any idea of how to fix that.....but is that option truly open to a person contending that magic book is the word of a god? Magic book could have been written in an angelic font and language that all readers would recognize in their own and free of ambiguity or error. God could have "spoken" in such a way that all heard the same words in all languages simulataneously. We obviously can't do anything like that...but why can't a god?

What "god"...the author of creation, lord of the cosmos, that which sees and knows all, decided to do..instead of whatever else it could have done.....write a comic book in gutter-greek.

Now, is that any less ridiculous than sitting in a cloud and tossing thunderbolts down on the proles because you're angry at the orientation of your devotional figurines in the toilet shrine, ala Zues?

(November 29, 2018 at 12:59 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I think you may have missed the thrust there.  Whatever idea Min might have, it's generally accepted that some "god" could and would have a better one.  Lowly human worms that we are. 

So....it's easy to see how we can and have fucked the pooch, and maybe no one actually has any idea of how to fix that.....but is that option truly open to a person contending that magic book is the word of a god? Magic book could have been written in an angelic font and language that all readers would recognize in their own and free of ambiguity or error.  God could have "spoken" in such a way that all heard the same words in all languages simulataneously.  We obviously can't do anything like that...but why can't a god?

What "god"...the author of creation, lord of the cosmos, that which sees and knows all, decided to do..instead of whatever else it could have done.....write a comic book in gutter-greek.

Now, is that any less ridiculous than sitting in a cloud and tossing thunderbolts down on the proles because you're angry at the orientation of your devotional figurines in the toilet shrine, ala Zues?

Why should things be so easy?  I can only speak for myself here, but I like to push myself to learn things or find truth.  If things were spoon fed to me, I would get bored and even become complacent.  It's waking up each morning and having purpose that drives me to be who I am.  So I get wanting things to come a bit easier, but for some of us, we would be upset if that's how things were.

As far as someone sitting in a cloud or tossing thunderbolts, I'm not sure what you're basing that off of, but I think that type of thing was mean more as something satirical.  Same with a devil running around with a pitchfork.  But if you base your views off attempts at satire, you may miss the mark.  I have friends who are atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and a number of other beliefs, but we communicate with respect even when we disagree on something.  Why? Because we're buddies and even though we disagree on something sometimes, we're still friends and have much in common regardless of disagreements.

(November 29, 2018 at 1:58 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(November 29, 2018 at 12:59 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I think you may have missed the thrust there.  Whatever idea Min might have, it's generally accepted that some "god" could and would have a better one.  Lowly human worms that we are. 

So....it's easy to see how we can and have fucked the pooch, and maybe no one actually has any idea of how to fix that.....but is that option truly open to a person contending that magic book is the word of a god? Magic book could have been written in an angelic font and language that all readers would recognize in their own and free of ambiguity or error.  God could have "spoken" in such a way that all heard the same words in all languages simulataneously.  We obviously can't do anything like that...but why can't a god?

What "god"...the author of creation, lord of the cosmos, that which sees and knows all, decided to do..instead of whatever else it could have done.....write a comic book in gutter-greek.

Now, is that any less ridiculous than sitting in a cloud and tossing thunderbolts down on the proles because you're angry at the orientation of your devotional figurines in the toilet shrine, ala Zues?

Why should things be so easy? 

...for a god?  I suspect that "things" would be relatively easy, at least...compared to ourselves.  The thing is supposed to be omni-competent, is it not?  

Quote:I can only speak for myself here, but I like to push myself to learn things or find truth.  If things were spoon fed to me, I would get bored and even become complacent.  It's waking up each morning and having purpose that drives me to be who I am.  So I get wanting things to come a bit easier, but for some of us, we would be upset if that's how things were.

So a god shit the bed to keep you from getting bored and upset? That seems like an awfully myopic reason to do something so fundamentally stupid that is alleged to have incredibly profound consequences. Consider what you're telling me, here. That you would find it upsetting and boring..if a god were a more competent communicator. Really?

Quote:As far as someone sitting in a cloud or tossing thunderbolts, I'm not sure what you're basing that off of, but I think that type of thing was mean more as something satirical.  Same with a devil running around with a pitchfork.  But if you base your views off attempts at satire, you may miss the mark.  I have friends who are atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and a number of other beliefs, but we communicate with respect even when we disagree on something.  Why? Because we're buddies and even though we disagree on something sometimes, we're still friends and have much in common regardless of disagreements.

I'm asking you, bluntly and directly....whether or not the notion of a god who writes a failed magic comic book in gutter-greek is any less ridiculous than a god who tosses thunderbolts. 

That's the thrust of the "when you understand why you reject those other gods, you'll understand why I reject yours" quote.

(November 29, 2018 at 2:02 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(November 29, 2018 at 1:58 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Why should things be so easy? 

...for a god?  I suspect that "things" would be relatively easy, at least...compared to ourselves.  The thing is supposed to be omni-competent, is it not?  

Quote:I can only speak for myself here, but I like to push myself to learn things or find truth.  If things were spoon fed to me, I would get bored and even become complacent.  It's waking up each morning and having purpose that drives me to be who I am.  So I get wanting things to come a bit easier, but for some of us, we would be upset if that's how things were.

So a god shit the bed to keep you from getting bored and upset?  That seems like an awfully myopic reason to do something so fundamentally stupid that is alleged to have incredibly profound consequences.  Consider what you're telling me, here.  That you would find it upsetting and boring..if a god were a more competent communicator.  Really?

Quote:As far as someone sitting in a cloud or tossing thunderbolts, I'm not sure what you're basing that off of, but I think that type of thing was mean more as something satirical.  Same with a devil running around with a pitchfork.  But if you base your views off attempts at satire, you may miss the mark.  I have friends who are atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and a number of other beliefs, but we communicate with respect even when we disagree on something.  Why? Because we're buddies and even though we disagree on something sometimes, we're still friends and have much in common regardless of disagreements.

I'm asking you, bluntly and directly....whether or not the notion of a god who writes a failed magic comic book in gutter-greek is any less ridiculous than a god who tosses thunderbolts. 

That's the thrust of the "when you understand why you reject those other gods, you'll understand why I reject yours" quote.

There's no merit to your question.  You're talking about your own personal perceptions and beliefs about something.  You can't analyze anything properly if you start out with things like "failed magic book" or "gutter-greek."  For me to answer that, it would assume that I agree with your definitions, and quite honestly, I don't.  Now if you want to bring up individual points and establish parameters for evaluating those things, then it's a whole different ball game, and you'll probably find me more cooperative with giving you direct answers to your questions.

Furthermore, you are free to reject anything you like.  I'm not offended, and I doubt too many other people are either.  We all choose our path through life and we all get things right and wrong along the way.  But that's fine as long as we're learning.  Personally, I reject vegetarianism, sewing as a hobby, and AMD graphics card.  It doesn't mean someone else don't think they're fantastic, but I think they all suck compared to other possibilities.  What these all have in common is how we feel about them are personal opinions, and regardless of what we think, life goes on.

Anything to avoid a discussion or answer the simplest of questions, huh?

Here, lemme show you how it goes.

"Why, yes..yes, I do think that's just as ridiculous as a thunderbolt tossing santa in the stratosphere"

-easy.

I get that you think that we're talking about something else, that it's Not That™, but..there, I wouldn't even bother to argue with you. It would be futile. I only seek to help you understand what other people see, and why they say what they have..because that obviously sailed right over your nugget by reference to your responses. You don't have to agree, but it would probably help if you knew what it was you were disagreeing with, eh?