Sad thought about Jesus.

[Brian37]

Yeah there are parts in the new testament where Jesus acts a lot nicer than his dad did in the old testament. then there are parts where he acts as bad or worse. It's rather conflicting.

The Jesus character when you consider he is also God in human form, means you cannot separate him from the OT or end times God......... The middle of the book where he is less of a dick, is just like when a spouse beats the shit out of their partner, then buys them flowers and tells them they are sorry, then goes right back to beating the shit out of them again.

Just the demand to leave your family and friends and co workers if they don't follow Jesus as he commands in in the NT is a form of mental abuse and blackmail. Nobody has the right to tell me who to associate with. That demand alone takes away my own autonomy  and decision making.

[RobbyPants]

That being said, I realized he is much different from most of the Gods of history.

Take the Greek/Roman Gods for example. They weren't nice entities.

Just like the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I am so depressed.. it almost makes me think you dark creatures have at least a point, though I will talk and pray about this issue with my pastor.

Well, you can always do what my wife did. Keep believing in Jesus and just stop believing in hell. Personally, I don't see the need to keep believing in Jesus, either, but to each their own.

[Lek]

Yeah there are parts in the new testament where Jesus acts a lot nicer than his dad did in the old testament. then there are parts where he acts as bad or worse. It's rather conflicting.

The Jesus character when you consider he is also God in human form, means you cannot separate him from the OT or end times God......... The middle of the book where he is less of a dick, is just like when a spouse beats the shit out of their partner, then buys them flowers and tells them they are sorry, then goes right back to beating the shit out of them again.

Just the demand to leave your family and friends and co workers if they don't follow Jesus as he commands in in the NT is a form of mental abuse and blackmail. Nobody has the right to tell me who to associate with. That demand alone takes away my own autonomy  and decision making.

You're right that you can't separate Jesus from the Old Testament God or the end times God. In fact, he is the person of the Trinity who is coming back at the end to judge the world. The bible says that God is full of wrath; and that wrath will be poured out against evil. Of course when evil is destroyed forever, we'll all be restored to humanity's original state before sin, and will live with him in peace. We take our hits for sinning but, because of God's love for us we will live in peace for eternity.

[orangebox21]

Which Greek alphabet is that word written in?

So, let me see if I have this right: We're on an atheist forum, where the vast majority of the members supposedly do not believe that god, heaven, or hell exists.  Most of us are in agreement that the Holy Babble is a deeply flawed piece of human literature.

A quote was made from 11 English translations regarding the meaning of "eternal" or "everlasting".
So, somebody who apparently is not a Greek scholar looks up a Greek word - gets conflicting translations - and tries to use it to prove his original point . . . by strongly implying that all of the English translations are, well, to be generous, let's say "unclear".  Lek's original point seems to be that Hell is not ETERNAL torture. It's a finite period of time.  

Drippy Doodle gets into the mix somehow, but I have him on ignore.

Is no-one going to point out that 1) the entire argument is spurious and moot to people who don't believe in the existence of god or hell;

How is that relevant?  How is your belief in a claim relevant to the accuracy of an ancient text and it's translation from Greek to English?

2) Lek's pleading to the mis-translation of this passage can be applied to the entire book with ease, and

Even the definite articles?

3) attempting to re-define hell and its duration is acknowledging that the original concept is flawed, illogical, unbelievably cruel and unfair?

By that logic, when new scientific discoveries lead to a redefining of the cosmos and a changing of the duration of it's existence, we are now acknowledging that the original concept (the cosmos) is flawed, illogical, unbelievably cruel and unfair?  A person's understanding of a concept has no bearing on the truth or validity of the concept.

[drfuzzy]

---

So, let me see if I have this right: We're on an atheist forum, where the vast majority of the members supposedly do not believe that god, heaven, or hell exists.  Most of us are in agreement that the Holy Babble is a deeply flawed piece of human literature.

A quote was made from 11 English translations regarding the meaning of "eternal" or "everlasting".
So, somebody who apparently is not a Greek scholar looks up a Greek word - gets conflicting translations - and tries to use it to prove his original point . . . by strongly implying that all of the English translations are, well, to be generous, let's say "unclear".  Lek's original point seems to be that Hell is not ETERNAL torture. It's a finite period of time.  

Drippy Doodle gets into the mix somehow, but I have him on ignore.  

---

Is no-one going to point out that 1) the entire argument is spurious and moot to people who don't believe in the existence of god or hell;

How is that relevant?  How is your belief in a claim relevant to the accuracy of an ancient text and it's translation from Greek to English?

2) Lek's pleading to the mis-translation of this passage can be applied to the entire book with ease, and

Even the definite articles?

3) attempting to re-define hell and its duration is acknowledging that the original concept is flawed, illogical, unbelievably cruel and unfair?

By that logic, when new scientific discoveries lead to a redefining of the cosmos and a changing of the duration of it's existence, we are now acknowledging that the original concept (the cosmos) is flawed, illogical, unbelievably cruel and unfair?  A person's understanding of a concept has no bearing on the truth or validity of the concept.

How is that relevant?  How is your belief in a claim relevant to the accuracy of an ancient text and it's translation from Greek to English?  Oh, if you're just focusing on the basic debate point - it isn't.  I was simply pointing to what I see as wasted time and effort, arguing over the parameters of something that isn't there.  Of course, somewhere on the internet, there are probably folks who will argue over the columns of Olympus, the rooms of Valhalla, the levels of Hades, the workplace environment of Santa's workshop (I need to get back to work) various countries of Middle Earth - you get the picture.

Even the definite articles?  Silly.  The meaning of the text.  

By that logic, when new scientific discoveries lead to a redefining of the cosmos and a changing of the duration of it's existence, we are now acknowledging that the original concept (the cosmos) is flawed, illogical, unbelievably cruel and unfair?  A person's understanding of a concept has no bearing on the truth or validity of the concept.   When new facts about something we are studying are found, we rejoice, because of the addition to the pool of human knowledge.  If the day comes when hell is identified and being studied, a change of factual knowledge will be a good thing.  My point, that you are ignoring, is that someone who claims to believe in the existence of hell was trying to argue that christians should not think of hell as eternal punishment, despite being shown 11 biblical examples to the contrary.  This means that the believer is uncomfortable with the idea of eternal punishment.  The fact that he is uncomfortable implies that he views it as unfair, or at least, unpopular.

I'm not going to try to comment on Greek words because I am not a Greek scholar.

[Brian37]

The Jesus character when you consider he is also God in human form, means you cannot separate him from the OT or end times God......... The middle of the book where he is less of a dick, is just like when a spouse beats the shit out of their partner, then buys them flowers and tells them they are sorry, then goes right back to beating the shit out of them again.

Just the demand to leave your family and friends and co workers if they don't follow Jesus as he commands in in the NT is a form of mental abuse and blackmail. Nobody has the right to tell me who to associate with. That demand alone takes away my own autonomy  and decision making.

You're right that you can't separate Jesus from the Old Testament God or the end times God.  In fact, he is the person of the Trinity who is coming back at the end to judge the world.  The bible says that God is full of wrath; and that wrath will be poured out against evil.  Of course when evil is destroyed forever, we'll all be restored to humanity's original state before sin, and will live with him in peace.  We take our hits for sinning but, because of God's love for us we will live in peace for eternity.

Nope sorry, tell me why I should value a game set up without my consent on a planet full of disease and natural disaster and crime and war, and expect to be thankful for a crappy home only to become an ass kisser for eternity or be tortured forever? If a parent in the west behaved in the same selective neglectful deadbeat manor helping 1 but not all their 3 kids, left them in a house full of broken glass, cockroaches , ecoli and stuck knives in their hands and the parent says "Last one standing gets to go to live in a giant mansion with me" that parent would be arrested or thrown in prison.

And who is we? You mean if others don't kiss the fictional ass of the sky wizard you claim is real? Yea, Muslims think their Allah will vanquish evil too and all those who support and defend him will get into their cosmic Candyland too. Yep your god character is wrathful, but not like Judge Judy, more like Genghis Khan. Justice isn't about revenge, it isn't like Luke Sky Walker vs Darh Vader. It isn't Superman vs Lex Luther. But from the begining of that bronze age comic book to the end of it, it reads exactly like a comic book super hero verses a super villain.

Why all the drama? If he is all powerful, and didn't have to allow for "sin" then who is to blame for setting up the game? If you want to worship a bloodthirsty sky tyrant whose end goal is to torture everyone who doesn't kiss his ass, you can, but I refuse. I refuse simply because no such character exists, but even as a work of fiction your head boss isn't the nice guy you want to paint him out to be. Just like Kim Jong Un is nice to those loyal to him, but step out of line, bye bye.

[Brian37]

And as far as older trinity motifs and sitting in judgment of the dead, the Egyptians have Christianity beat. Ra, Osiris and Horus in their mythology sit in judgement of humanity.

[Lek]

You're right that you can't separate Jesus from the Old Testament God or the end times God.  In fact, he is the person of the Trinity who is coming back at the end to judge the world.  The bible says that God is full of wrath; and that wrath will be poured out against evil.  Of course when evil is destroyed forever, we'll all be restored to humanity's original state before sin, and will live with him in peace.  We take our hits for sinning but, because of God's love for us we will live in peace for eternity.

Nope sorry, tell me why I should value a game set up without my consent on a planet full of disease and natural disaster and crime and war, and expect to be thankful for a crappy home only to become an ass kisser for eternity or be tortured forever? If a parent in the west behaved in the same selective neglectful deadbeat manor helping 1 but not all their 3 kids, left them in a house full of broken glass, cockroaches , ecoli and stuck knives in their hands and the parent says "Last one standing gets to go to live in a giant mansion with me" that parent would be arrested or thrown in prison.

And who is we? You mean if others don't kiss the fictional ass of the sky wizard you claim is real? Yea, Muslims think their Allah will vanquish evil too and all those who support and defend him will get into their cosmic Candyland too. Yep your god character is wrathful, but not like Judge Judy, more like Genghis Khan. Justice isn't about revenge, it isn't like Luke Sky Walker vs Darh Vader. It isn't Superman vs Lex Luther. But from the begining of that bronze age comic book to the end of it, it reads exactly like a comic book super hero verses a super villain.

Why all the drama? If he is all powerful, and didn't have to allow for "sin" then who is to blame for setting up the game? If you want to worship a bloodthirsty sky tyrant whose end goal is to torture everyone who doesn't kiss his ass, you can, but I refuse. I refuse simply because no such character exists, but even as a work of fiction your head boss isn't the nice guy you want to paint him out to be. Just like Kim Jong Un is nice to those loyal to him, but step out of line, bye bye.

You've distorted the whole situation to the max, but you're free to believe what you want.

[Brian37]

Nope sorry, tell me why I should value a game set up without my consent on a planet full of disease and natural disaster and crime and war, and expect to be thankful for a crappy home only to become an ass kisser for eternity or be tortured forever? If a parent in the west behaved in the same selective neglectful deadbeat manor helping 1 but not all their 3 kids, left them in a house full of broken glass, cockroaches , ecoli and stuck knives in their hands and the parent says "Last one standing gets to go to live in a giant mansion with me" that parent would be arrested or thrown in prison.

And who is we? You mean if others don't kiss the fictional ass of the sky wizard you claim is real? Yea, Muslims think their Allah will vanquish evil too and all those who support and defend him will get into their cosmic Candyland too. Yep your god character is wrathful, but not like Judge Judy, more like Genghis Khan. Justice isn't about revenge, it isn't like Luke Sky Walker vs Darh Vader. It isn't Superman vs Lex Luther. But from the begining of that bronze age comic book to the end of it, it reads exactly like a comic book super hero verses a super villain.

Why all the drama? If he is all powerful, and didn't have to allow for "sin" then who is to blame for setting up the game? If you want to worship a bloodthirsty sky tyrant whose end goal is to torture everyone who doesn't kiss his ass, you can, but I refuse. I refuse simply because no such character exists, but even as a work of fiction your head boss isn't the nice guy you want to paint him out to be. Just like Kim Jong Un is nice to those loyal to him, but step out of line, bye bye.

You've distorted the whole situation to the max, but you're free to believe what you want.

No I have not distorted a thing. Your problem is that you swallowed the book without skepticism so of course you don't read it objectively. Just like if you point out the nasty parts of the Koran a Muslim will jump all over you as well.

Now, instead of saying my short summery is a distortion because you don't like my book review, try understanding it like you would if you saw a bad movie or read a bad work of fiction.

From the start, as the book goes, the head character is an unmovable figure who does everything by himself and doesn't ask anyone for consent, he simply does it. In reality outside that book, the west has gotten away from the concept of kings and lords which are dictators. The royalty that still exists in Europe and Japan have been neutered to basically diplomat status. 

Take your deity googles off. Back in all of antiquity even in polytheism the ruling class where at best puppet governments even in Rome. Some allowed more self governance but ultimately even a Cesar could override what the senate did. Even they moved up through family rule, by the death of those prior or the murder by a competitive family member. 

The Egyptians also mistook their success as coming from the divine. So if you go back and read that bible without your beer goggles on, you do see the words like Kingdom and Lord and master. Because back then humans lived in very feudal times and there was no modern class pluralistic rule. Back then in most societies you had family rule, government class, which was upper class, and military class, the rest of society basically were the servants for the other three. 

Now again, the head character is not the nice guy you interpret him as. I get that you like him and want to view him like that, but that character was mistaken as real, but he was not written like that for modern society, he is a reflection of the false perceptions of the people back then and their own desires. Just like you'd rightfully accept the Native American's spirit gods are a reflection of what their social norms were back when people made them up.

There is no way to paint the god of Abraham as objectively pluralistic. Being kind some of the time or to some people, and even trying to get out of the concept of hell through cherry picking still puts him in absolute power. In real life, our elected officials don't have absolute power. The god of the bible is not elected like a PM or President in the west. Now instead of seeing that as an insult go back and read the bible word for word and don't skip anything and don't try to justify clinging to that book, just simply read it like you had never picked it up before.


He is a dictator, there is simply no polite way to put it. That is what you call an immovable position.

[orangebox21]

No I have not distorted a thing. Your problem is that you swallowed the book without skepticism so of course you don't read it objectively. Just like if you point out the nasty parts of the Koran a Muslim will jump all over you as well.

How do you know that?  How do you know he didn't struggle with some doctrines or wonder to himself "can that really be true" as he read through the text?  Do you know his inner most thoughts?

Now, instead of saying my short summery is a distortion because you don't like my book review, try understanding it like you would if you saw a bad movie or read a bad work of fiction.

It's a distortion because it misrepresents the claims.

From the start, as the book goes, the head character is an unmovable figure who does everything by himself and doesn't ask anyone for consent, he simply does it.

There was literally no one other than himself, at the start.  Who would He ask?

In reality outside that book, the west has gotten away from the concept of kings and lords which are dictators. The royalty that still exists in Europe and Japan have been neutered to basically diplomat status. 

Take your deity googles off. Back in all of antiquity even in polytheism the ruling class where at best puppet governments even in Rome. Some allowed more self governance but ultimately even a Cesar could override what the senate did. Even they moved up through family rule, by the death of those prior or the murder by a competitive family member.

 
Starting to sound eerily like modern day America.

Now again, the head character is not the nice guy you interpret him as. I get that you like him and want to view him like that, but that character was mistaken as real, but he was not written like that for modern society, he is a reflection of the false perceptions of the people back then and their own desires. Just like you'd rightfully accept the Native American's spirit gods are a reflection of what their social norms were back when people made them up.

So when people "made God up" in the scriptures they projected themselves upon the concept of God.  Then why did they write things like:  "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9).  If this was a god of a societies own making, then he would think and act in the same manner as they do.  Certainly the author claimed that God is an entity separate from, and not a reflection of, his social norms.

There is no way to paint the god of Abraham as objectively pluralistic. Being kind some of the time or to some people, and even trying to get out of the concept of hell through cherry picking still puts him in absolute power.

The stipulations of God's favor were clearly stated.  Do good [follow my commandments] and live, or do evil and perish.  

In real life, our elected officials don't have absolute power. The god of the bible is not elected like a PM or President in the west. Now instead of seeing that as an insult go back and read the bible word for word and don't skip anything and don't try to justify clinging to that book, just simply read it like you had never picked it up before.

In real life, elected officials are not omniscient nor omnipotent.  Why would you expect the same attributes and rules to apply to God as you would to man?

He is a dictator, there is simply no polite way to put it. That is what you call an immovable position.

Why is that wrong?  The best elected official in the world would be an all knowing, all powerful, perfectly just, and merciful being.  You would elect him/her in a heartbeat.  Then again maybe you wouldn't.  Maybe in your autonomy you would deny the validity of his/her attributes.