Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CX · 08-05-2003, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man

And that's all he has to say to Jinto's evidence. Somehow, he has the idea that if the language is figurative, we can ignore it, but that simply isn't true.

Not to mention that the NT was composed in Greek so the figurativeness or not of Aramaic is irrelevant. The Greek is pretty clear and concise on the nature of hell. But of course modern Xians would abhor the injustice of eternal torture so they modernize the concept to fit their culturally derived ethical framework.

Family Man · 08-05-2003, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
[B]Family Man,
No, that is my point. Your fisherman clearly does not make fish "tremble" upon "hearing" his name. Neither do I understand hell being physical torture

So what? You're completely off-topic. I don't care what your understanding of hell is. It is no more relevant than my understanding of hell as being non-existent. It is how you (and many other Christians) fallaciously label passages you don't like as being figurative as if you can therefore ignore the message.

By the way, I'm not saying that the fish tremble. I'm saying that figurative speech is meaningful and can not be dismissed as being meaningless as you tried to do. You can't turn the passages presented to you as meaning a mere separation from God. The images presented are those of fire and torture.

Quote:

, which was Jinto's main point--fallaciously using the traditional Aramaic symbols (e.g. fire) for the judgment of God as literal English elements.

First, as CX points out, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Second, it doesn't matter whether it is figurative or not. You can't interpret those passages as being a mere separation from God. These are images of torture, not benign neglect.

Third, all languages -- English, Greek, and Aramaic -- are capable of expressing ideas both literally and figuratively. Had the images chosen by the gospel writers meant something other than torture, the translators could very easily express that meaning in English. So unless you claim greater expertise in ancient languages than those who did the translation, I don't think you have much of a case here.

Quote:

What is hell? Irrespective of the symbols used to paint a picture about it, it is clearly an utter separation of the individual from God, goodness, and others. Is it bad? Yes. Is it a cosmic torture chamber? No. Comprenez-ca?

Not according to the many biblical passages you're mightily trying to reinterpret.

Quote:

Oh, and stop beating on Magus55, he is right about many atheists hating the concept of the Judeo-Christian God. Jinto said as much to me in the thread that spawned this one. That also wasn't the first instance that I've heard such things.

Magus is off-topic. Period. Do you recall my OP referring to hating the Judeo-Christian God? Magus needs to take his act elsewhere.

Family Man · 08-05-2003, 09:05 AM

Jinto --

This topic had been on my mind for a couple of weeks. I was just waiting for a good example of someone declaring a passage as being figurative then ignoring the plain message. BGIC happened to be it.

As CX pointed out, all he's doing is trying to fit the biblical message to his modern view. Had he said, yes those passages mean what they say they mean, but the authors were incorrect, I wouldn't have used him as an example. But I don't think he's capable of admitting such a thing -- it would imply there is other incorrectness in the Bible. Which is why he keeps trying to suck this thread into a debate over the nature of hell and why I've worked so hard to keep it on topic. The nature of hell is not relevant to the point I'm trying to make here.

Jinto · 08-05-2003, 09:19 AM

Ach, sorry, made an off-topic post here.

RED DAVE · 08-05-2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:

This entire board is a rebellion against God, whether you realize it or not. You have nothing better to do than argue with Christians over a being you claim to be fake, and then you just insult and ridicule the Christians with sarcasm. You can't even see that you are fulfilling the claims in the Bible as we speak. The more time i spend on this board, the more I realize the wisdom and claims of the Bible are right.

A snottier statement it would be hard to pen.

What I am rebelling against is the POWER of people who believe in God, such as that born-again mass murderer George Bush, who used to line people up on death row as a hobby. I don't give a fuck about God, who has no existence and, therefore, no power. But the believers, ah, there's the rub!

Now that xtianity has settled down as a justification for war, racism, repression and capitalism as whole, I have no problem targeting it.

As for your god -- out to lunch.

RED DAVE

Mageth · 08-05-2003, 09:29 AM

Good topic.

A similar phenomenon occurs when one quotes or points out a passage such as Luke 19:27:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me."

Local apologists are quick to point out "But that's part of a parable! You're not reading it in context!" (Whether this exemplary passage is indeed part of a parable is irrelevant to the point.) In doing this, the apologists are glossing over the fact that the parables are supposed to convey some truth about God, and the "parable" defense, like the "figurative" defense, is used to soften the harshness of what the parable is conveying and to fit the biblical message to a modern view.

Doctor X · 08-05-2003, 09:55 AM

Red Dave:

Quote:

What I am rebelling against is the POWER of people who believe in God, such as that born-again mass murderer George Bush, who used to line people up on death row as a hobby.

Now . . . now . . . he did not sentence them and he did flush a born-again who pick-axed a woman.

If you rebel you must know what you rebel against.

--J.D.

RED DAVE · 08-05-2003, 09:59 AM

From Dr. X:

Quote:

If you rebel you must know what you rebel against.

I am unworthy! I am unworthy! Where is Jimmy Swaggart now that i need him?

RED DAVE

JaeIsGod · 08-05-2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Oh really?

This statement from JaeisGod, an atheist:

"I have to go for the Christian god ,mainly because I just cant stand him =o "

.

Ok , just for the record. Its like hating Darth Vader in Star wars or any other bad guy in a movie. Something like "Man , that evil clone posing as Superman is such an bad mofo , I hope he gets his ass kicked".

Ok , now continue with the topic =p

Doctor X · 08-05-2003, 10:17 AM

Red Dave:

Have you lost Reverend Jimmy?!

I can help you find him! But are you willing to "plant a seed" to allow your faith to grow?

Anyways, this is all just another matter of the age-old tradition of reading what you "like" strictly, and what you "do not like" figuratively.

If that does not work . . . listen to the voices that visit in the night after that fifth of Rye. . . .

--J.D.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-05-2003, 09:05 AM	#23
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Jinto -- This topic had been on my mind for a couple of weeks. I was just waiting for a good example of someone declaring a passage as being figurative then ignoring the plain message. BGIC happened to be it. As CX pointed out, all he's doing is trying to fit the biblical message to his modern view. Had he said, yes those passages mean what they say they mean, but the authors were incorrect, I wouldn't have used him as an example. But I don't think he's capable of admitting such a thing -- it would imply there is other incorrectness in the Bible. Which is why he keeps trying to suck this thread into a debate over the nature of hell and why I've worked so hard to keep it on topic. The nature of hell is not relevant to the point I'm trying to make here.

08-05-2003, 09:19 AM	#24
Jinto Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: SLC, UT Posts: 957	Ach, sorry, made an off-topic post here.

08-05-2003, 09:29 AM	#26
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Good topic. A similar phenomenon occurs when one quotes or points out a passage such as Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me." Local apologists are quick to point out "But that's part of a parable! You're not reading it in context!" (Whether this exemplary passage is indeed part of a parable is irrelevant to the point.) In doing this, the apologists are glossing over the fact that the parables are supposed to convey some truth about God, and the "parable" defense, like the "figurative" defense, is used to soften the harshness of what the parable is conveying and to fit the biblical message to a modern view.

08-05-2003, 10:17 AM	#30
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Red Dave: Have you lost Reverend Jimmy?! I can help you find him! But are you willing to "plant a seed" to allow your faith to grow? Anyways, this is all just another matter of the age-old tradition of reading what you "like" strictly, and what you "do not like" figuratively. If that does not work . . . listen to the voices that visit in the night after that fifth of Rye. . . . --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.