ELECTROGOD

Not for long, Harry Potter is going to be in the lead pretty soon and then when this happens then the world will know that these books were written for all of mankind to enjoy and will establish it as the true holy book due to popularity. Praise be to the real god, Harry Potter (not the author who wrote it just like those who wrote the Christian bible).

The Christian bibles (plural because there are several hundred versions) have become so well sold largely due to repeat customers (preachers, missionaries, organizations and religious families) who often buy large quantities in order to pass them out for free to anyone they can (not actual customers adding to the sales figures). Kind of like the Amway system that basically requires it's salesmen (downline) to buy the product for themselves and uses those "sales" figures to represent it's earnings. Many xian organizations brag about the thousands and even millions of bibles they have bought with believer's money (sometimes questionable claims about where that money actually goes) and given away to people around the world.
The bible also got a bit of a headstart due to it being the first book ever printed on a printing press since the inventor and the "government" in Europe at the time was really a Christian theocracy (in many sections) that used it's resources to begin widespread distribution of the book. An interesting note about the printing press is that the second thing ever printed on it was erotica (often mislabled as pornography). A very telling historical fact to say the least. :thumbs:

diana

Hi, Chris.

No, case not dropped. Only because I have more thoughts to add, though.

Incidentally, I wasn't making the assumption you were a Christian--or anything, for that matter. My apologies if I appeared to be antagonistic. It wasn't my intent.

I was thinking as I was driving to work (quickly after a hasty post yesterday morning) that the argument that "the Greek means X" are interesting and useful, indeed, in the attempt to understand what was most likely intended by the author, but don't help much with making Christian beliefs make sense or be any more practicable. In addition to Paul's expansion on the "love" theme you pointed out, there are the commands I pointed out earlier about loving God and having to believe in order to be saved. Does the "love" in the command to "love God" imply an act only? Or are we being ordered to feel something? Are we being ordered to behave as though we believe? Or are we being ordered--as I suspect--to believe?

The Greek intent of one word doesn't change the apparent ongoing assumption that we are expected to believe and love simply because we choose to do so.

I know. We're again confusing the facts with the standard Christian position against which I am arguing. To wit: IF the bible was meant for everyone for all time [standard Christian position], THEN it must make sense to everyone for all time in the same way. The only way to do that for certain is to make it literal.

For the record, I find many figurative and allegorical and "this is what hte Greek meant" interpretations far more interesting and useful and sensible than literal ones, but these all fail the "bible is for everyone" test.

d

Chris Weimer

What the Greek actually says at that point, what is said elsewhere, and the modern Christian understanding of the term means are three entirely different things.

Depends on the context. I have showed John's context. Some, like Pascal, for instance, assume that love in that sense only requires the act. If that were not true, then Pascal's Wager is in effect useless and counter-productive. However, once again, I would need to examine the context.

I don't comprehend what you're trying to say here...?

1st - It is bad form to use the popular interpretation for these texts.
2nd - Actually, the only way for the Bible to be used by everyone for all time is to understand it with the interpretation that it was written in. Granted that this takes time and effort, and we'll probably never agree on all points, it is worth it. Else why would I be in the field which I am?

However, my interpretation was, in fact, a literal interpretation.

diana

Hi, Chris.

I fear I'm not being clear. Apologies. I'll try again.

When one is arguing against those who accept the popular interpretation of these texts, it's the only interpretation worth arguing against.

This assumes the education and dedication to learn what it was meant to say and not what it appears to mean in light of our current experiences. You ask a great deal of a people who have been overwhelmingly illiterate and ignorant until modern times.

I concur. I also find it fascinating. What field are you in? Something Greekish.

Yes. The literal interpretation of a man who knows Greek, which is not to be confused with the literal interpretation of a man who speaks English but does not know Greek. They're both literal--and they conflict.

d

Chris Weimer

Oh. So you're not arguing with me then? I feel...awkward.

No, just from you.

Well, technically Latin and Greek, though I hope I get accepted to York University in Toronto, in which I'll be majoring in Classics and perhaps a minor in either Hebrew studies, East Asian studies, Hellenic studies, religious studies, linguistics, or possibly even computer science. I'm still unsure.

The problem is in the translation, then, or maybe inherent in the English language. Perhaps we should borrow the word for English from Greek. This is the command of me that you agape others according as I agape you?

Also, some sound advice - ignore the ignorant who don't want to learn - it's not worth it.

diana

My apologies. I didn't realize you thought I was arguing with you. The awkward feeling is mutual.

And I appreciate your enlightening me. It wasn't so much to ask (of me), really.

Yowza. One of these things is not like the others.

The problem is inherent in humanity, I'm thinking. The idea that words meant something different to the original speakers and something that can't really be translated into our language is something that has to be educated into you. Otherwise, you look at words like "love" and assume you know what it means.

Thank you. I'm not sure that's the best advice, but I certainly understand your position.

d

Magus55

Because of course, God always uses every natural disaster to destroy humankind for giggles.... Could you leave your misinformed opinion and hatred of a being you don't even believe exists out of this? Every thread you are in, you interject some assanine comment about God's evil nature.. We get the point...

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, I would actually differ on both points, though I agree with much of what Chris said.

Love is not an action, it is a motive, and yet it also is not essentially a feeling, either. "Love one another as I have loved you" (Jn. 13:34) makes it imperative to know how it is Christ loved his disciples, for only then will we understand this command. Maybe a start would be "love comes from God" (1 Jn. 4:7), so we might ask for it! and then "we love because he loved us" (1 Jn. 4:19), and so we might seek to know the love of God more.

But to respond to the point that a command to love is senseless, that is true only if stating a standard is senseless. It might be hopeless for us to try and reach it on our own! I believe it is. But at least if we know the destination that is required, then the next step would be apparent, to seek to find out how to get there; assuming we are interested...

Regards,
Lee

Peter Watts

My love for you as a fellow human means I won't take you to task for your atrocious grammar.
That aside, loving someone doesn't mean you try to convince yourself that someone is a nice person when they clearly aren't. It doesn't mean being pleased with a vile act they may perpetrate. Loving someone, and this comes with difficulty, means respecting someone's value as a fellow human being and trying to see them as a fellow child of God. It means acknowledging that someone who annoys me is prone to the same frailties, foibles and mistakes that I myself am prone to.
That bit you mentioned about tolerance doesn't take into account that love holds a higher regard for someone. Tolerating what is intolerable isn't love and isn't good for the other person. Love holds people acountable, as parents do to children they love.

John A. Broussard

Thank you for your kind comment.

Now, is it possible for you to deal with the substance of what I said?

Why does your god, who you claim loves human kind, cause so much suffering?

I'm looking forward to your answer.