(November 6, 2013 at 9:03 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(bolded by me)(November 6, 2013 at 7:38 pm)catfish Wrote: Hmmm, don't take this as an accusation, but I'd like to know if it was your post that made me put this here:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-19080-po...#pid397487
The link doesn't work because the thread is gone or something???
No idea, but I do remember making the argument that either of us could be right. My point, however, was that just because the word might mean what you say it does, doesn't mean it does so in that context, and that without evidence as to the author's original intent, we've got no way to justifiably take one definition over the other.
Meanwhile, from my perspective, the entire book is an exercise in engineering obedience, sometimes through fear; thinking of hell as eternal makes sense. Moreover, it's the definition that the majority of your religion seems to have taken on, so I've got no issue with arguing from that. If you've got a case to make for the other definition, then make it, but as far as I can remember, you've kinda refused to in the past.
'Nuff said. Now do I go to hell because I don't believe your interpretation?
