And Hells come back to haunt me

[catfish]

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.

(bolded by me)
'Nuff said. Now do I go to hell because I don't believe your interpretation?

[Godscreated]

Why is it unfair for God to punish for an eternity, would it actually be fair to reward for eternity and then not punish for eternity?
GC

Why does god insist on forcing us into either of those two choices? I would choose neither.

It's His right as your creator.

GC

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Why does god insist on forcing us into either of those two choices? I would choose neither.

It's His right as your creator.

GC

One of the many reasons I wouldn't bow down to god even if it was real

[Esquilax]

(bolded by me)
'Nuff said. Now do I go to hell because I don't believe your interpretation?

Nope. Why are you giving me trouble because I'm honest enough to admit that I could be wrong? So could you, of course. My position is this: you have come to a conclusion that the majority of the followers of your religion don't seem to hold. Why is it that they're all wrong, and you're right?

Not that it really matters to me, since I don't take the book to conform to reality anyway, and no matter the interpretation I'd still find any form of punishment for the sins I've committed to be ridiculous. But if you're going to make an argument, the least you can do is defend it.

[Brakeman]

Why does god insist on forcing us into either of those two choices? I would choose neither.

It's His right as your creator.

GC

So god doesn't care what people want, only what he wants.

[Esquilax]

It's His right as your creator.

GC

So god doesn't care what people want, only what he wants.

And now, GC's lost any right he might have had to ever use a free will argument again.

[catfish]

(bolded by me)
'Nuff said. Now do I go to hell because I don't believe your interpretation?

Nope. Why are you giving me trouble because I'm honest enough to admit that I could be wrong? So could you, of course. My position is this: you have come to a conclusion that the majority of the followers of your religion don't seem to hold. Why is it that they're all wrong, and you're right?

Not that it really matters to me, since I don't take the book to conform to reality anyway, and no matter the interpretation I'd still find any form of punishment for the sins I've committed to be ridiculous. But if you're going to make an argument, the least you can do is defend it.

I think my main issue is that you arbitrarly pick a definition that suits your agenda whilst admitting that you could be wrong. Based on what? Popularity? Or because the bible says so? I know why they would want it to be "eternal", but why would you?

I know the definition of the word(s) and their usage as do you. I've had people argue for the literal interpretation which I'm ok with. The Greek literal interpretation though. What happens to eternal if you read it that way?
I also think the term "eternities of eternities" makes no sense while "age of the ages" does. But my reasons don't matter, I don't believe that crap.

So you don't care about what it says, admit it could mean something else, and argue for the "nasty" popular opinion?
And, are you against punishment for crimes too?

[Esquilax]

So you don't care about what it says, admit it could mean something else, and argue for the "nasty" popular opinion?

Keeping an open mind on this issue doesn't preclude me from holding an opinion about it; I happen to feel that, given the reason for hell's inclusion in christianity, the purpose that it serves, that eternal would be the most fitting meaning for the role. If I'm wrong, if you came to me today with a recording of the writer of that passage saying that it was the other meaning, then I'm wrong, and I hold no stake in arguing for my current position in spite of better evidence. But as for where I am now, I'm thinking it means eternal.

And, are you against punishment for crimes too?

No, why would I be? I'm entirely for fair, justified punishment for crimes, as adjudicated by a responsible, democratically appointed position that can be vacated should abuse of that power occur.

You might now see why I find this whole hell dealie ridiculous and unjustified.

[catfish]

"I do remember making the argument that either of us could be right"
You say I could be right (50%), I say I am (100%). Majority triumphs!

[snowtracks]

So god doesn't care what people want, only what he wants.

And now, GC's lost any right he might have had to ever use a free will argument again.

God is not willing that any should perish, but God will grant to those who deliberating choose eternal separation from His authority and glory their desire; free will is in play here.