Who, by you?

(May 10, 2012 at 8:58 am)Drich Wrote: 2. Greek was the written language at the time what other language did you expect them to use?

Plus you do know wiki is not a legitmate reference material do you not?

The original definition had nothing to do with God, it was adopted by Christianity who twisted its meaning to its own ends as you well know so will you kindly cut the bullshit.

I haven't noticed you quote any sources other than your personal opinion, fundamentalist christian websites and the equivilent of "ask.com". I also find it interesting wikipedia was good enough when it came to you describing the different kinds of greek love but here, maybe this is more to your liking:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Agape
To put it in terms you can understand; these are the people who tell wikipedia off if they're not getting it right.

Take your time, you'll find Agape is a word stolen from great scholars and writers during the time of Plato (to describe a feeling of non-sexual affection or love by the way), repurposed and then reapplied frequently throughout the Bible. Hm, Christians taking the words of dead geniuses out of context? Well who would of thought it. Your kind are nothing more than unskilled scavengers who take the most beautiful notions and thoughts of others, repurpose/destroy them and then slap them on to that shit heap you call a religion.

Quote:5.

I rest my case, you have nothing.

(May 10, 2012 at 9:06 am)Mosrhun Wrote:

(May 10, 2012 at 8:58 am)Drich Wrote: The short answer is God said so.

Considering god has yet to be shown to exist, this is an empty statement and therefore not even an answer.

It is only an answer for those in whom seek out the God of the bible. All others are free to do as they wish with this life.

(May 10, 2012 at 1:30 pm)Drich Wrote:

(May 10, 2012 at 9:06 am)Mosrhun Wrote: Considering god has yet to be shown to exist, this is an empty statement and therefore not even an answer.

It is only an answer for those in whom seek out the God of the bible. All others are free to do as they wish with this life.

Thats conveiniant except most of us have read the Bible cover to cover sooo... try again.

Allow me to change your straw man in order to read correctly.

Ah, you see that is the problem, you are changing the parameters (Back to what was originally communicated in the Koine Greek.) By changing the accepted meaning of the word 'love', you are in effect changing (Our pop culture understanding of) God (to what the bible originally stated about God. Forcing all of us who have built arguments around the modern English interpretations of the bible to rethink our positions. And since most of us are only able to parrot back the same old weak arguments over and over again, you have left us angry and defenseless because the only arguments we know are based on what you have made null and void. So rather than address the topic at hand we are desperately trying any old tactic we can to try and manage/combat what we do not truly comprehend. At this point we are simply going on "Faith" that God does not exist.)

[So, let's say you were to tell me that the Hulk (was originally illustrated in a bluish grey,) I'd want to see the comic/cartoon/movie as proof. (But if/when you show me the cover of Hulk #1 know I will quickly retort that I need proof for the existence of the Hulk in real life in order to accept whatever you say.)

Quote:What I am basically arguing is that without proof of God's existence you can just change what ever you want about his nature, start a discussion about it, then demand that people remain within the (original) parameters that YOU (Point out.) Don't you see how manipulative and dishonest a position that is?

Which is why I offered to clarify any misunderstanding you have if you simply go line by line with the parts of the explanation given that you do not understand. and yes I do see how dishonest your argument is. The question should be, can you?

Expose my strawman by misrepresenting my argument. Well done. My point is that you and everyone like you can just make up justifications for what you believe, because no one can proof your God does not exist. That is dishonest.

(May 10, 2012 at 11:30 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: The original definition had nothing to do with God, it was adopted by Christianity who twisted its meaning to its own ends as you well know so will you kindly cut the bullshit.

Yes or no do you know what a lexicon is?

Quote:I haven't noticed you quote any sources other than your personal opinion, fundamentalist christian websites and the equivalent of "ask.com".

(This is what happens when i stop smiling at your comments)

Then you are either lying, illinformed, or illiterate and whom ever is reading for you has fail to tell you I gave the names of no less than 4 lexicons I have provided at least a half a dozen times in this thread.

The problem with you guys seem to be either you do not understand what a lexicon is, or you don't know how or why they are used. Literally every other source you all have quoted for this discussion have base their definition on what lexicons have to say. Yet you all continually refer to secondary material or even commentary as source material. Do you not understand how basic research works? Commentary like what is found in a wiki or even an encyclopedia is based on the work of source material. I have provided source material and you do not seem to understand what that is in relation to whatever you are using to try and undermine what has been presented.

Quote:I also find it interesting wikipedia was good enough when it came to you describing the different kinds of Greek love but here, maybe this is more to your liking:

What post number did I quote wiki?

Quote:http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Agape
To put it in terms you can understand; these are the people who tell wikipedia off if they're not getting it right.

you do know this source supports my original definitions right?

Quote:Take your time, you'll find Agape is a word stolen from great scholars and writers during the time of Plato (to describe a feeling of non-sexual affection or love by the way), repurposed and then reapplied frequently throughout the Bible.

Kinda like cool, or sick, or hot.. So what??? In the context it is being used the word means exactly what the author intended. We have enough documentation to define the word in question. Those definitions are placed in Koine to English lexicons. This is the end of the argument as lexicons are The source material for any translations being done from one language to another.

Quote: Hm, Christians taking the words of dead geniuses out of context?

it was the written language of it's day, how else were Christians to record the principles of God? Now what if a principle in one language did not have a word being described in another? Were they expected to simply leave out what the written language (Greek) could not describe in the spoken language (Arimaic?) No they took the closest thing they could find in the Greek and supplemented the original word with a more detailed definition. Just like you would have done if you were trying to describe something in another language.

---

(May 10, 2012 at 2:23 pm)gringoperry Wrote: Expose my strawman by misrepresenting my argument. Well done. My point is that you and everyone like you can just make up justifications for what you believe, because no one can proof your God does not exist. That is dishonest.

Then answer my challenge and lets go line by line so you can have your "honest answers." Or can't you argue outside of sweeping generalities?

---

(May 10, 2012 at 1:32 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(May 10, 2012 at 1:30 pm)Drich Wrote: It is only an answer for those in whom seek out the God of the bible. All others are free to do as they wish with this life.

Thats conveiniant except most of us have read the Bible cover to cover sooo... try again.

"Seek out the God of the bible" is not the same as reading the bible.

Considering it is to be found nowhere else, it is exactly the same.

(May 10, 2012 at 2:34 pm)Drich Wrote: Yes or no do you know what a lexicon is?

Yes, do you know what parasitism is?

Quote:(This is what happens when i stop smiling at your comments)
Then you are either lying, illinformed, or illiterate and whom ever is reading for you has fail to tell you I gave the names of no less than 4 lexicons I have provided at least a half a dozen times in this thread.
The problem with you guys seem to be either you do not understand what a lexicon is, or you don't know how or why they are used. Literally every other source you all have quoted for this discussion have base their definition on what lexicons have to say. Yet you all continually refer to secondary material or even commentary as source material. Do you not understand how basic research works? Commentary like what is found in a wiki or even an encyclopedia is based on the work of source material. I have provided source material and you do not seem to understand what that is in relation to whatever you are using to try and undermine what has been presented.

And the problem with your kind is you think the traversties your predecessors have commited are forgotten, they are *not* forgotten. You have no special right to the term Agape. It is a borrowed word, a twisted reflection of what it was.
All of your research consists mainly of biased sites or Bible quotes and you have the gall, the sheer audacity to take a swipe at *me* for using wikipedia and the world encyclepedia when you yourself used it on this very thread. All of the evidence points to a word that was continually misused and then imbued with some sort of spirtual implications. One you would attempt to use today to confuse our less educated of web-surfers. It means love of a non-sexual kind, it was "Christianized" into meaning love of a divine nature. The word itself is not proof for anything more than the Christian penchant for ruining things it can't comprehend. As for "divine love", the examples you have shown are worthless to anyone with an ounce of warmth in their veins and have no evidence of ever taking place outside of the Bible. Oh and by the way, primary material is material gained straight from the source. Most material quoted is secondary, its very rare when it isn't and in yours and your entire religions case its all you've got.

These are the facts, deal with them you self-rightious dick.

Quote:What post number did I quote wiki?

On page 4, fail.

tell you what ralphie since you did cop out of this discussion with some obscure meme reference, you can go ahead and call this a win unless you want to gloat. then of course we can continue on repeating ourselves for the next 10 pages offering no new information like you did just with your last post.